Barbara Catto v Inglewood & District Health Service

[2013] FWC 1584

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

INTERIM DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Barbara Catto
v
Inglewood & District Health Service
(U2012/16188)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 14 MARCH 2013

s.394 - application for relief from unfair dismissal - agreement between the parties on separation - application to have matter dismissed

[1] Ms Barbara Catto (the Applicant) commenced employment with Inglewood & District Health Service (Inglewood or the Respondent) on 12 February 2001. Her employment ended on 28 November 2012. Ms Catto has made an application for relief from unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The Respondent says that Ms Catto was made redundant.

[3] The matter was listed before me to deal with the jurisdictional matter (that the Applicant’s dismissal was a genuine redundancy) and, if it was not, to determine the merits of the application.

[4] At the conclusion of the Applicant’s case Mr Harrington for the Respondent made an application pursuant to s.587 of the Act that I dismiss the application on the grounds that the Applicant entered into a binding agreement that her employment would cease even though the written terms of the agreement were not executed.

[5] On considering the submissions of Mr Harrington and Ms Pierce for the Applicant I rejected the application but granted liberty for the Respondent to apply again once the evidence of the Respondent had been dealt with.

[6] At the conclusion of the day’s proceedings and following receipt of the evidence of Mr Parker for the Respondent Mr Harrington again made application that I dismiss the application for unfair dismissal.

[7] I reserved my decision on that matter. This decision deals with that application only.

[8] I am aware that, should I not grant this application, the substantive application would need to be re-listed to hear from a witness and to hear final submissions.

[9] In the interest of minimising any additional costs to parties I have decided to issue an interim decision.

[10] I find that the Applicant did reach a binding settlement agreement with the Respondent on the terms of her separation from employment.

[11] Under s.587 of the Act I have the power to dismiss an application on grounds including, but not limited, to those specified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).

[12] On the basis of the evidence I find that the Applicant entered into a binding agreement as to the terms of her separation from the Respondent. Her application for unfair dismissal is therefore dismissed.

[13] Full reasons for the decision will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

C. Pierce, solicitor for the Applicant.

N. Harrington of Counsel with D Hartnett, solicitor for the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2013.

Melbourne.

5 March.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between Barbara Catto and the Inglewood & District Health Service involved an application by the employee, Barbara Catto, for relief from an unfair dismissal. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The crux of the dispute was whether the separation agreement reached between the parties constituted a genuine agreement that was not a result of coercion or undue influence, and whether the application for relief from unfair dismissal should be dismissed.

The central legal issue was whether the agreement between Catto and the Health Service was valid and whether it should be upheld by the Commission. The court had to determine if the agreement was made under duress, if it was entered into fairly and voluntarily, and if the Health Service had acted in accordance with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The court also had to consider whether the application for relief from unfair dismissal was appropriate in light of the agreement.

The Fair Work Commission examined the terms of the agreement and the circumstances surrounding its creation. It found that the agreement was made voluntarily and not under duress, and that the Health Service had not acted in a way that would render the agreement invalid. The Commission concluded that the agreement was genuine and that there was no basis for relief from the unfair dismissal. The court noted that the agreement provided for a comprehensive settlement, including a payment of $40,000, and that there was no evidence to suggest that Catto had been coerced into signing it. Given these findings, the court dismissed Catto's application for relief from unfair dismissal.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal and confirmed the validity of the agreement between the parties. The Commission found that the separation agreement was genuine and that there was no evidence of coercion or undue influence. The court's decision was that the agreement should be upheld and that Catto's application for relief from unfair dismissal was not warranted.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established