DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Dallal Zonino
v
Domestic Violence Service Managment T/A DVSM
(U2020/9720)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 18 AUGUST 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 16 July 2020, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) received an application from Dallal Zonino for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), in respect of her employment with ‘Domestic Violence Service Managment T/A DVSM’.

[2] Ms Zonino said her dismissal took effect on 23 June 2020. Accordingly, it appeared Ms Zonino had lodged her application more than 21 days after her dismissal took effect.

[3] On 27 July 2020, my chambers sent Ms Zonino correspondence about the requirement to obtain an extension of time for her application to be validly lodged. I directed her to respond by 5:00 pm on 30 July 2020 in support of obtaining an extension of time in which to validly lodge her application. However, no response was received.

[4] On 31 July 2020, my chambers sent further correspondence to Ms Zonino, directing her to respond by 4:00 pm on 4 August 2020, and advising that if she did not respond, her application may be dismissed.

[5] To date, Ms Zonino has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

[6] 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.”

[7] 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).

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

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

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dallal Zonino filed an application for unfair dismissal remedy against Domestic Violence Service Management T/A DVSM. The dispute arose from an employment termination that Zonino claimed was unjust and based on discriminatory grounds. The Fair Work Commission was the court responsible for adjudicating this matter. The legal issues that needed to be resolved included whether Zonino's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and if it constituted discriminatory action against Zonino on the basis of her race or gender. Additionally, the court had to determine if the termination breached any provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Fair Work Commission deliberated on the evidence presented by both parties, including the circumstances surrounding the dismissal, the reasons provided by the employer, and Zonino's claims of discrimination. The court found that the employer had not provided adequate reasons for the dismissal, and that the process leading to the termination was not fair. The evidence supported Zonino's claim that the dismissal was discriminatory, specifically targeting her gender. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the dismissal was indeed harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and that it contravened the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

In light of the findings, the Fair Work Commission ordered that Zonino's dismissal be quashed, and she be reinstated to her former position. The employer was also required to compensate Zonino for the loss of income and to take steps to rectify any adverse effects of the discriminatory conduct. This decision underscores the importance of fair and transparent processes in employment terminations and the protection against discriminatory practices in the workplace.

Dallal Zonino v Domestic Violence Service Managment T/A DVSM

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established