DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Catherine Bishop
v
Roleystone Country Club
(U2021/6658)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 18 AUGUST 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 28 July 2021 Ms Catherine Bishop 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). Ms Bishop alleged she was unfairly dismissed by Roleystone Country Club (the Respondent) on 26 July 2021.

[2] The application was incomplete in that Ms Bishop did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

[3] On 30 July 2021 Ms Bishop emailed a completed waiver form to the Commission but the waiver was not granted. On 2 August 2021 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Bishop to advise the fee payment was still required, however Ms Bishop did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting Ms Bishop contact the Commission to pay the filing fee. An email was also sent to Ms Bishop advising the waiver application was refused and the application fee would need to be paid by 16 August 2021 or the matter may be dismissed.

[4] A final attempt to contact Ms Bishop was made by the Commission on 16 August 2021 to obtain payment. The call was not answered and a voicemail message was left advising Ms Bishop that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.

[5] To date there has been no response from Ms Bishop, and the required fee has not been paid.

[6] Section 395 of the FW Act, which deals with application fees, provides as follows:

395 Application fees

(1) An application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The regulations may prescribe:

(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under this Division; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

[7] Section 587(1) of the FW 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

[8] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the FW Act, the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An order 1 to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR732962.

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Catherine Bishop lodged an application against the Roleystone Country Club seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The applicant, Ms Bishop, was a member of the club and was employed as a waitress. She alleged that she was dismissed without just cause or reason, contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the dismissal of Ms Bishop was indeed unfair under the Act. Specifically, the court had to determine if the dismissal was within the range of responses that a fair and reasonable employer might have made, given the circumstances. Ms Bishop argued that her dismissal was retaliatory, as it followed her reporting an incident of alleged sexual harassment to the club's management. The club, on the other hand, claimed that her termination was justified due to poor work performance and misconduct.

In assessing the fairness of the dismissal, the court considered the nature of the employment, the conduct of the employee, and the employer's adherence to procedural fairness. The court found that Ms Bishop's dismissal was not supported by valid reasons, and that the club had failed to follow appropriate procedures. It was determined that the dismissal was retaliatory, as it was a response to her complaint of sexual harassment. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Ms Bishop, finding that her dismissal was unfair and ordering reinstatement and compensation.

Catherine Bishop v Roleystone Country Club

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established