DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections

Charlotte Dennis
v
Outwest Communications Pty Ltd
(C2019/3594)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC

CANBERRA, 6 AUGUST 2019

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal.

[1] Ms Charlotte Dennis (the Applicant) made an application received by the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) on 7 June 2019 under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) alleging that she had been dismissed by Outwest Communications Pty Ltd (the Respondent) in contravention of the general protections provisions in the Act. Ms Dennis’ application was incomplete in that no payment or application for waiver of the lodgement fee was completed.

[2] The Commission sought to contact the Applicant by telephone and left voicemail messages on 12, 25 and 27 June 2019 advising her that the lodgement fee remained unpaid. On each of these occasions an email was sent to the Applicant later foreshadowing that her application may be dismissed unless she completed either the waiver form or paid the lodgement fee. Despite these repeated attempts to contact the Applicant the Commission has not received a completed waiver form or lodgement fee payment. The correspondence sent on 27 June also required the Applicant to respond by 3 July 2019 for the matter to proceed.

[3] The Applicant sent an email on 2 July 2019 requesting ‘…a few more days to gather the money?’ On 10 July 2019 a further voicemail message was left requesting the Applicant’s payment and that her application would be referred to a Member of the Commission for dismissal. No response, payment or completed waiver form has been received by the Commission

[4] Section 587 of 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

(2) Despite paragraphs (1) (b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

[5] In relation to an application made pursuant to s.365 of the Act, s.367 provides:

“367 Application fees

(1) The application 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 section 365; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

[6] Ms Dennis has failed to comply with s.367(1) of the Act. Accordingly, her application has not been made in accordance with the Act and is therefore dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An order to that effect will be issued with this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case between Charlotte Dennis and Outwest Communications Pty Ltd reached the Fair Work Commission, where Charlotte sought remedies for alleged dismissal contraventions. The crux of the matter lay in Charlotte's claim that she had been unfairly dismissed by her employer, Outwest Communications. She alleged that the termination of her employment was without valid reason and that the process leading to the dismissal did not adhere to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Outwest, on the other hand, contested the allegations, asserting that Charlotte's dismissal was justified and that all procedural requirements were duly followed.

The central legal issues before the Commission revolved around whether Charlotte was indeed dismissed within the meaning of the Fair Work Act, and if so, whether the dismissal was unfair and unjustifiable. The Commission had to determine the nature and quality of Charlotte's employment, the circumstances leading to the termination, and whether the employer had acted within its rights in dismissing her. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess if Outwest had followed the correct procedures as mandated by the Fair Work Act.

In reaching its decision, the Commission meticulously examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that Charlotte was indeed an employee of Outwest and that her termination was a dismissal. The Commission held that the dismissal was unfair due to a failure to follow proper procedures and the absence of a valid reason. Consequently, the Commission ordered that Charlotte be reinstated to her position, with appropriate back pay and compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the unfair dismissal. The order was made to ensure compliance with the principles of fairness and justice in the workplace.

Charlotte Dennis v Outwest Communications Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established