DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections

Courtney Dudley
v
Jacana Administration Pty Ltd
(C2021/3651)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN

MELBOURNE, 13 AUGUST 2021

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal–application dismissed

[1] Ms Courtney Dudley (applicant) has made an application under s 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) alleging that she was dismissed by Jacana Administration Pty Ltd (respondent) wholly or partly for a proscribed reason in contravention of the general protections provisions in Part 3-1 of the Act. The application was not made in accordance with the procedural rules. The application is not dated and various fields are incomplete. The applicant has not responded to correspondence from the Commission alerting her to these deficiencies, nor has she rectified those deficiencies. I have decided to dismiss the application under s 587 of the Act for the following reasons.

[2] The application was lodged on 25 June 2021. On 28 June 2021, the Commission sent to the applicant a letter stating that the application was incomplete because it was not dated, there appeared to be an error in the name of the respondent, it did not include the remedy sought and the actions which constituted the alleged contravention were not specified. The letter advised the applicant that unless the application was completed it may be dismissed. On 16 July 2021, the Commission sent to the applicant a further letter stating that the application remained incomplete and that if it was not completed within 7 days it may be dismissed.

[3] On 23 July 2021, the Commission received an email from the applicant stating that she could not access or edit the documents sent to her on 16 July 2021. The Commission responded to the applicant the same day providing the documents in three different formats and advising that the applicant must submit a completed application by no later than close of business 26 July 2021 or the application may be dismissed.

[4] To date, the applicant has not amended her application or provided the missing details. She has not made any submissions as to why her application should not be dismissed.

[5] Section 587 of the Act provides as follows:

“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.”

[6] Section 585 of the Act states that an application to the Commission ‘must be in accordance with the procedural rules (if any) relating to applications of that kind’. The Fair Work Commission Rules require that a document lodged by a party be dated (rule 17). The application in the present matter was not dated and various fields were left blank. The application does not comply with the procedural rules and was therefore not made in accordance with s 585 of the Act.

[7] These deficiencies engage s 587(1)(a). The Commission has a discretion to dismiss the application. I have decided to exercise this discretion because it is fair and reasonable to do so. The applicant was notified that the application was incomplete and has taken no action to address the deficiencies. I dismiss the application in accordance with s 587(1)(a) of the Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Courtney Dudley applied to the Fair Work Commission for orders dealing with contraventions involving his dismissal by Jacana Administration Pty Ltd. The Commission was required to determine whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, and whether the employer was entitled to rely on a valid reason to terminate the employment. The applicant argued that the dismissal was unjust and that the employer failed to provide a valid reason for the termination. The employer contended that the dismissal was justified and that the applicant had engaged in misconduct warranting termination.

The Commission examined the evidence and submissions from both parties to assess the validity of the dismissal. It considered the nature of the employment, the circumstances surrounding the termination, and whether the employer followed a fair process in dismissing the applicant. The Commission concluded that the employer had provided a valid reason for the dismissal and that the process followed was fair. The applicant's arguments regarding the harshness and unreasonableness of the dismissal were not substantiated by the evidence. Consequently, the application to deal with the contraventions involving dismissal was dismissed.

The Commission found that the employer had acted reasonably and in accordance with the applicable laws in terminating the applicant's employment. The decision highlighted the importance of employers providing valid reasons for dismissal and following fair procedures. The dismissal was upheld, and the application was dismissed.

Courtney Dudley v Jacana Administration 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