DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections

Dannielle Phillips
v
Starlight Retail
(C2017/28)

MELBOURNE, 27 FEBRUARY 2017

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal.

[1] On 3 January 2017, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) telephoned the applicant regarding her incomplete application, however no contact was made and a voice message was left. Correspondence was sent to the applicant confirming that her application was incomplete. The applicant was given 14 days to provide the necessary documentation.

[2] On 13 January 2017, an attempt to contact Ms Phillips by telephone was unsuccessful and a voice message was left.

[3] On 16 January 2017, the Commission received a call from the applicant, and the Commission confirmed that Ms Phillips needed to submit a completed application and waiver. The applicant was advised that this information could not be taken over the phone and must be provided in writing. The application form and a blank waiver form were resent to the applicant on her request.

[4] On 17 January 2017, Ms Phillips was sent further correspondence again advising that her application was incomplete. The applicant was advised that in the absence of advice from her, the application may be dismissed.

[5] On 27 January 2017, an attempt to contact Ms Phillips by telephone was unsuccessful and a voice message was left advising that her application remains incomplete.

[6] On 31 January 2017, a final attempt to contact Ms Phillips by telephone was unsuccessful and a voice message was left requesting that the applicant urgently contact the Brisbane Registry of the Fair Work Commission.

[7] No response has been received from the applicant and the application remains incomplete.

[8] 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.”

[9] In relation to an application made pursuant to s.365 of the Act, s.367 provides: “367 Application fees

(1) The application must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations. (2) The regulations may prescribe:

(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under section 365; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

refunded.”

[10] Ms Phillips has failed to comply with s.367(1) of the Act. Accordingly, her application has not been made in accordance with the Act and is therefore dismissed pursuant to ss.587(1)(a) of the Act. An order to that effect will be issued with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case of Dannielle Phillips v Starlight Retail involved an application by the applicant, Dannielle Phillips, to the Fair Work Commission for relief regarding contraventions that allegedly involved her dismissal. The Fair Work Commission, under the Fair Work Act 2009, was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was unfair and whether there were other contraventions of the Act that warranted specific remedies. Starlight Retail, the respondent, contested the applicant's claims, asserting that the dismissal was lawful and that no contraventions occurred.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the dismissal of Dannielle Phillips was unfair within the meaning of section 383 of the Fair Work Act, and whether there were other contraventions of the Act that should be addressed. The applicant argued that her dismissal was unjust and that there were additional contraventions related to the termination process. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the dismissal was conducted in accordance with the law and that no contraventions had occurred.

In assessing the matter, the Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties and considered the relevant legal provisions. The Commission found that the dismissal of Dannielle Phillips was not unfair, as it was based on genuine performance-related reasons and followed proper procedural steps. Additionally, the Commission concluded that there were no other contraventions of the Fair Work Act that warranted specific remedies. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the applicant's claims.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the application be dismissed and that no further action be taken in relation to the contraventions alleged by Dannielle Phillips. The decision was based on the Commission's finding that the dismissal was fair and that no contraventions of the Fair Work Act had occurred.

Dannielle Phillips v Starlight Retail

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established