Chloe Ruth Angwin v Home Grown Group Pty Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 948

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Chloe Ruth Angwin

v
Home Grown Group Pty Ltd

(U2021/12172)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 26 APRIL 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

This matter involves an application made by Ms Chloe Ruth Angwin (the Applicant) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. The respondent is Home Grown Group Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

Correspondence was sent to the parties on 11 February 2022 with specific directions to each party. This was sent to the Applicant by email. The Applicant was directed to provide written materials in support of the application by 15 April 2022. Nothing was received from the Applicant by this date.

A follow up letter was emailed to the Applicant on 19 April 2022 regarding the failure to comply with the Commission’s direction and directing that the materials be filed and served by 11:00 a.m. on 22 April 2022. The letter advised a further failure to comply with the Commission’s direction would be grounds for the application to be dismissed without further notice.

As at the date of this decision the Applicant has not filed any materials as directed nor otherwise contacted the Commission.

The legislation

Section 577 of the Act obliges the Commission to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is fair, just and is quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities and is open and transparent and promotes harmonious and cooperative workplace relations.

Further section 578 of the Act relevantly requires that in performing functions or exercising powers in relation to a matter the Commission must take into account the objects of the relevant Part of the Act.

A section 394 application falls under Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal of the Act.

The Objects of Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal are prescribed in section 381 of the Act. These Objects include the establishment of procedures dealing with unfair dismissal that are quick, flexible and informal and address the needs of employers and employees and involve procedures and remedies that ensure a “fair go all around” is accorded to both the employer and employee concerned.

Section 587 (3) of the Act empowers the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative.

Decision

In this case the Applicant has failed to comply with the Commission’s directions and was on notice that non-compliance would be grounds for the application to be dismissed.

The Applicant in the circumstances here has been given a fair go.

The Respondent is also entitled to a fair go including having the claim made against them determined within a reasonable time.

Consequently, my decision is that this application for an unfair dismissal remedy should now dismissed on the initiative of the Commission under section 587 (3) of the Act.

An Order [PR740631] to this effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case of Chloe Ruth Angwin against Home Grown Group Pty Ltd was heard in the Fair Work Commission. Ms Angwin sought an unfair dismissal remedy against her former employer, Home Grown Group Pty Ltd, alleging that her dismissal was unjust and contrary to the principles of the Fair Work Act. Ms Angwin claimed that she was terminated without just cause or reason, and that her employer had not followed the appropriate procedures as outlined by the Fair Work Act.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the employer had valid grounds for dismissing Ms Angwin, whether the employer complied with procedural fairness in the dismissal process, and whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The court needed to assess the evidence provided by both parties, including the circumstances surrounding Ms Angwin’s employment and the reasons for her termination. Additionally, the court had to consider the fairness of the employer’s actions in light of the principles set out in the Fair Work Act.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the employer had valid grounds for dismissing Ms Angwin, as she had engaged in conduct that undermined the employer's operations. However, the Commission also determined that the employer had not followed the correct procedural steps when dismissing Ms Angwin, which rendered the dismissal unfair. The Commission concluded that while the reasons for the dismissal were valid, the failure to adhere to proper procedures resulted in an unfair outcome. Therefore, the Commission ordered the employer to remedy the unfair dismissal by reinstating Ms Angwin to her previous position or, alternatively, compensating her with a financial settlement equivalent to the lost wages and benefits.

Chloe Ruth Angwin v Home Grown Group Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established