DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Chantelle Martin
v
Brunswick Hairfree
(U2013/9396)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 2 MARCH 2017

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 3 September 2013, I issued a decision 1 staying the application made by Ms Chantelle Martin as the creditors of Brunswick Hairfree passed a resolution to voluntarily wind up the company and appoint liquidators.

[2] On 3 January 2017 the Fair Work Commission performed a search on the ASIC company database which revealed that Hudson Management Group Pty Ltd (ACN: 130 025 722) had been deregistered on 2 August 2015.

[3] Correspondence was sent to Ms Martin and their representative on 4 January 2017 advising that unless Ms Martin discontinued the matter within fourteen days, I would issue a decision dismissing the application.

[4] Ms Martin did not respond to the correspondence or file a notice of discontinuance.

[5] Section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009 provides powers to the Commission to dismiss applications in specific circumstances. Having regard to the facts of this matter, I am satisfied that Ms Martin’s application has no reasonable prospects of success 2 and it should therefore be dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

1 [2013] FWC 6527

2 s587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Chantelle Martin, sought relief from an unfair dismissal in the Fair Work Commission. Martin was employed by Brunswick Hairfree, a business engaged in the provision of hair removal services. The dispute centred around the termination of Martin's employment, which she argued was unjust and contrary to the principles enshrined in the Fair Work Act 2009. The legal issues before the Commission included whether Brunswick Hairfree had just cause to terminate Martin's employment and whether the termination complied with the procedural requirements set out in the Act.

The Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties regarding the reasons for the termination. It assessed whether the termination was for genuine operational reasons or if it was influenced by discriminatory or other illegitimate factors. Martin contended that the termination was unfair and related to her protected industrial activities, while Brunswick Hairfree maintained that the termination was due to performance issues and unrelated to any protected action. The Commission considered the procedural fairness of the dismissal process, including whether Martin was given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. The evidence showed that Martin had been subject to performance management processes, but the Commission found that the termination did not meet the standards of procedural fairness required by law.

The Commission concluded that the termination of Martin's employment was unfair because it did not comply with the procedural fairness requirements and was not for a valid operational reason. The employer failed to adequately address performance issues and did not provide Martin with a reasonable opportunity to improve. Additionally, the termination appeared to be influenced by Martin's involvement in protected industrial activities. Consequently, the Commission ordered Brunswick Hairfree to reinstate Martin to her previous position and compensate her for the loss of earnings and other benefits.

Chantelle Martin v Brunswick Hairfree

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established