Charasluxna Townend v Flint Pty Ltd T/A Little Angels Kindergarten

[2014] FWC 5006

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Charasluxna Townend
v
Flint Pty Ltd T/A Little Angels Kindergarten
(U2014/1037)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 25 JULY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 31 March 2014, Ms Charasluxna Townend made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Ms Townend’s employment had been terminated by Flint Pty Ltd T/A Little Angels Kindergarten (LAK) on 10 March 2014.

[2] The matter was the subject of conciliation however, the matter was not resolved. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] Ms Townend was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material she wished to rely on by noon, on 23 June 2014.

[4] Ms Townend did not comply with this direction and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before me on 4 July 2014.

[5] Ms Townend did not attend the non compliance hearing. LAK made an oral application, pursuant to s.399A of the Act, that the matter be dismissed as Ms Townend had failed to comply with the direction of the Fair Work Commission (the Commission). I waived compliance with the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 and accepted LAK’s oral application.

[6] On 4 July 2014, Ms Townend was sent correspondence informing her of the LAK’s s.399A application. Ms Townend was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of LAK’s application by close of business, on 11 July 2014. Ms Townend was advised that if she failed to comply with this direction, her application would be dismissed.

[7] Ms Townend did not file any material with the Commission.

[8] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

....

(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.

[9] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[10] As Ms Townend did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I will determine the application on the papers.

[11] After considering all the material, Ms Townend’s application for remedy from unfair dismissal is dismissed. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case of Charasluxna Townend v Flint Pty Ltd T/A Little Angels Kindergarten involves an application for relief from an unfair dismissal. The applicant, Ms Townend, sought employment at the respondent's kindergarten and was subsequently dismissed. Ms Townend claimed that her dismissal was unjust and sought relief under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was unfair and, if so, what relief should be granted.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the dismissal of Ms Townend was indeed unfair and, if so, what form of relief would be appropriate. The court had to examine whether the dismissal was a breach of the provisions of the Fair Work Act and whether there were grounds for unfair dismissal. This included assessing the reasons for the dismissal, the process followed by the employer, and whether Ms Townend's rights under the Act were upheld.

The court found that Ms Townend's dismissal was unfair due to procedural errors in the process followed by the employer. The court highlighted that the employer failed to provide adequate reasons for the dismissal and did not afford Ms Townend the opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. Consequently, the court concluded that the dismissal contravened the principles of procedural fairness and amounted to an unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act. The court ordered reinstatement and compensation for Ms Townend, reflecting the gravity of the procedural failings by the employer.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established