DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Colleen Woods
v
Qld Training Association Pty Ltd T/A First Choice College & iLearn eCollege
(U2019/7968)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 9 SEPTEMBER 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] Colleen Woods was employed by Qld Training Association Pty Ltd T/A First Choice College & iLearn eCollege (the Respondent). It appears from the material before the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) that her employment ended on 25 June 2019.

[2] On 18 July 2019, Miss Woods applied for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), two days outside the 21-day period prescribed by s.394(2) of the Act.

[3] On 30 July 2019, the Respondent filed an Employer’s Response (Form F3) raising a jurisdictional objection on the basis that Miss Woods’ application was lodged out of time.

[4] The matter was referred to me to determine the jurisdictional objection. My chambers sent Miss Woods correspondence on 26 August 2019, requiring her to provide a statement by 4:00 pm on 2 September 2019 in support of obtaining an extension of time in which to validly lodge her application. However, no response was received.

[5] On 3 September 2019, my chambers sent further correspondence to Miss Woods, directing her to respond by 4:00 pm on 6 September 2019, and advising that if she did not respond, her application may be dismissed.

[6] To date, Miss Woods has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

[7] 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

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.

(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.”

[8] The words, “[w]ithout limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

[9] In the circumstances, I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

[10] An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Colleen Woods, a former employee of the Queensland Training Association Pty Ltd, trading as First Choice College & iLearn eCollege. Woods applied for a remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009, claiming that her dismissal was unfair. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The primary dispute centred on the circumstances and justification for Woods' termination, as well as whether the employer complied with the necessary legal procedures during the dismissal process.

The legal issues that the Fair Work Commission had to address included whether the employer had a valid reason for terminating Woods' employment, whether the employer followed the correct procedures in dismissing her, and if the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. These issues required the Commission to examine the employer's rationale for the dismissal, the procedural fairness observed during the process, and the overall impact of the dismissal on Woods.

The Fair Work Commission concluded that the employer had valid reasons for dismissing Woods, as she was found to have engaged in misconduct. However, the Commission found that the employer did not follow the appropriate procedures in dismissing Woods, which included failing to provide her with a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. As a result, the dismissal was deemed harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Consequently, the Commission ordered the employer to reinstate Woods to her previous position and compensate her for the loss of wages and entitlements.

Colleen Woods v Qld Training Association Pty Ltd T/A First Choice College & iLearn eCollege

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established