DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Bella Rose
v
ALH Group T/A Hallam Hotel
(U2021/6808)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 24 AUGUST 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 3 August 2021 Miss Bella Rose made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). Miss Rose alleged she had been unfairly dismissed by ALH Group T/A Hallam Hotel on 28 July 2021.

[2] Miss Rose advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that she commenced employment with ALH Group T/A Hallam Hotel on 15 February 2021 and that she was notified of her dismissal on 28 July 2021.

[3] On 4 August 2021 the Commission attempted to contact Miss Rose on her nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left advising that she had not served the minimum employment period.

[4] Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Miss Rose’s nominated email address advising Miss Rose that on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Miss Rose to file any documents/evidence to support her claim that she had served the required minimum employment period. That correspondence also warned that if Miss Rose did not contact the Commission within 14 days, the application may be dismissed without further notice. An SMS notification was also sent to Miss Rose’s nominated telephone number, requesting that she contact the Commission.

[5] As the required documentation was not received, on 16 August 2021 the Commission attempted to contact Miss Rose via her nominated telephone number. However, Miss Rose could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting that she contact the Commission.

[6] To date, Miss Rose has not replied to the Commission’s correspondence.

[7] Section 382 of the FW Act provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if they have completed a period of employment of at least the minimum employment period.

[8] Section 383 of the FW Act sets out the minimum employment period as follows:

383 Meaning of minimum employment period

The minimum employment period is:

(a) if the employer is not a small business employer—6 months ending at the earlier of the following times:

(i) the time when the person is given notice of the dismissal;

(ii) immediately before the dismissal; or

(b) if the employer is a small business employer—one year ending at that time.

[9] Section 587(1) of the FW Act provides that:

587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

[10] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter I am satisfied that as Miss Rose has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act, her application has no reasonable prospect of success. As such, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act. An order 1 to this effect will be issued with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR733066.

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the case of Bella Rose against ALH Group T/A Hallam Hotel was heard. Bella Rose lodged an application for an unfair dismissal remedy, asserting that her dismissal from employment was unjust, harsh, and unreasonable. The dispute centred on whether the hotel had valid grounds for terminating her employment, as well as the procedural fairness observed during the termination process.

The court was required to determine if the hotel's actions in terminating Bella Rose's employment complied with the applicable provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the hotel had a valid reason for dismissal and if it followed proper procedures. Additionally, the court examined whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable in the circumstances.

The court deliberated on the evidence presented regarding the reasons for dismissal and the process followed. It found that the hotel had legitimate grounds for termination, stemming from Bella Rose's conduct, which warranted dismissal. However, the court held that the hotel failed to follow proper procedures, including providing adequate notice and an opportunity for Bella Rose to respond. The court concluded that the dismissal was harsh due to the lack of procedural fairness, thereby finding the dismissal to be unfair. Consequently, the court ordered the hotel to reinstate Bella Rose to her former position and award her compensation for lost wages and entitlements.

Bella Rose v ALH Group T/A Hallam Hotel

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established