Collette Starr Hardie v Clayfield College & Dr Andrew Cousins

Case [2023] FWC 3487


[2023] FWC 3487

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

CORRECTION TO DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Collette Starr Hardie
v

Clayfield College & Dr Andrew Cousins and Others

(C2023/6193)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DOBSON

BRISBANE, 2 JANUARY 2024

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application filed out of time – circumstances not exceptional – application dismissed

The decision issued by the Fair Work Commission on 29 December 2023 [2023] FWC 347, PR769880 is corrected as follows:

  1. Delete paragraph 44 and replace with the following:

[44]     On 11 September 2023, the Applicant claimed she was contacted by an individual who identified herself as ‘Tasman’ who informed her that the Commission had requested that the Applicant discontinue one of the Applications. The Applicant stated that ‘Tasman’ did not explain the difference between the Applications and to proceed with the Unfair Dismissal Application. That same day, the Applicant contacted the Commission and discontinued the General Protections Application. With the consent of the Applicant, I sought a copy of the recording/s the Applicant had with the Commission. There was one recording which I will refer to later.”

  1. Delete paragraph 62 and replace with the following:

[62]     The Respondent did not contest the steps taken by the Applicant to dispute the dismissal. The Applicant’s evidence was the filing of the separate applications.”

  1. The endnotes are amended to remove the reference to Becke v Edenvale Manor Aged Care {2014] FWCFB 6809, [9] at 14.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR769882>

Details
AGLC
Collette Starr Hardie v Clayfield College & Dr Andrew Cousins [2023] FWC 3487
Case
[2023] FWC 3487
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Collette Starr Hardie sought relief against Clayfield College and Dr. Andrew Cousins, alleging unfair dismissal and general protections under the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was before the Fair Work Commission, led by Deputy President Dobson, who issued a decision on 2 January 2024. Hardie claimed she was dismissed without just cause or procedure, and that she faced adverse consequences for exercising her rights under the Act. The college and Dr. Cousins denied these allegations and argued that Hardie's dismissal was lawful and procedurally sound.

The central legal issues involved whether Hardie's dismissal was unfair and whether she had been subjected to adverse consequences for exercising her rights. The court also had to consider whether Hardie's application to address these issues was filed within the required timeframe, and if the circumstances were exceptional enough to warrant a waiver of the time limit. Deputy President Dobson examined the evidence presented by both parties, including Hardie's claim of being contacted by someone named 'Tasman' who allegedly pressured her to discontinue one of her applications, and the subsequent steps she took in response to this contact.

In its decision, the Commission found that Hardie's application was not filed within the statutory timeframe, and the circumstances did not meet the threshold for an exception. The court emphasised that Hardie's actions, such as contacting the Commission and discontinuing one of her applications, did not constitute sufficient grounds to excuse the late filing. Additionally, the court noted that the respondent did not dispute the steps Hardie took to dispute her dismissal, and therefore, her claims were not dismissed on procedural grounds alone. Instead, the court dismissed the application due to the procedural failure to file within the required time frame.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed Hardie's application on the grounds that it was filed out of time and the circumstances were not exceptional. The Commission did not find it necessary to rule on the merits of Hardie's claims regarding her dismissal and the alleged adverse consequences. The decision also included a correction to the previous ruling, clarifying certain procedural details and removing an erroneous reference to a prior case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.