Carlie Cetraro v East Gippsland Building Permits Pty Ltd T/A Egbp Building Surveyors

[2015] FWC 2632

[2015] FWC 2632

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Carlie Cetraro
v
East Gippsland Building Permits Pty Ltd T/A EGBP Building Surveyors
(U2015/3264)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY MELBOURNE, 17 APRIL 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] Ms Carlie Cetraro alleged that the termination of her employment by East Gippsland Building Permits Pty Ltd (EGBP) on 28 January 2015 was unfair.

[2] Ms Cetraro’s unfair dismissal application lodged on 19 February 2015 was not made within 21 days of the date of the dismissal.

[3] On 20 February 2015, a Fair Work Commission staff member spoke with Ms Cetraro and advised of the out of time issue and that correspondence would be sent to her. A letter was sent to her on the same day.

[4] On 6 March 2015, EGBP lodged its employer response form, objecting to the application on the basis it was out of time and the dismissal was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code.

[5] On 18 March 2015, I caused correspondence to be sent to Ms Cetraro via post and email, advising that it appeared her application was made outside the legislated time frame and that she should fill out an accompanying document which would outline her argument for extending time. It was advised that a response was due within 10 days from the date of the letter.

[6] On 30 March 2015 and 1 April 2015, a voicemail was left for Ms Cetraro to call the Commission to discuss her application and the recent correspondence.

[7] On 1 April 2015, Ms Cetraro advised a Commission staff member that she did not receive the letter of 18 March 2015 via post, and though she received it in email form, she was unable to open the attachments. It was brought to Ms Cetraro’s attention that the body of the email stipulated that she was requested to respond within 10 days. Ms Cetraro confirmed no follow up was done. Ms Cetraro asked the staff member to send the email again over several emails and advised that there was no alternate postal address.

[8] On 2 April 2015, email correspondence was sent to Ms Cetraro. Four emails were sent, each with one attachment. The body of the first email noted that Ms Cetraro was requested to respond within 10 days.

[9] Ms Cetraro did not provide a response to that correspondence.

[10] On 13 April 2015, a voicemail was left on Ms Cetraro’s phone advising that no response to the Commission’s email of 2 April 2015 had been received and that she had until Wednesday 15 April 2015 to provide a response. It was advised that if no response was received, her application would be dismissed.

[11] To date, Ms Cetraro has not provided a response.

[12] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied Ms Cetraro has not lodged her application within 21 days of the date of the dismissal and she has not made any submissions that the Commission should consider to extend time for the lodging of her unfair dismissal application. As no extension of time has been sought or granted, the application having been made outside of the 21 day time limit was not made in accordance with the Act.

[13] Section 587(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) provides:

“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

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.”

[14] Consequently, the application is dismissed under section 587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR563158>