Deborah Ann Player v Macquarie Towns Specialist Centre

[2021] FWC 6529

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Deborah Ann Player
v
Macquarie Towns Specialist Centre
(U2021/10190)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 7 DECEMBER 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

[1] On 12 November 2021, Ms Deborah Ann Player made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). Ms Player alleged she had been unfairly dismissed by Macquarie Towns Specialist Centre (the Respondent).

[2] The application form filed by Ms Player was incomplete in that she did not provide the reasons for dismissal given by the employer and the application filing fee was unpaid.

[3] That same day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Player’s nominated email address requesting that she provide further details and pay the filing fee as the application was incomplete. That correspondence also advised that if the information and payment of the application filing fee were not provided within 14 days, the application may be dismissed.

[4] As the required information was not received, on Wednesday 24 November 2021 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Player on her nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left requesting that Ms Player contact the Commission via telephone to make payment of the application filing fee. It also advised Ms Player that question 3.1 on the application form was required for the application to proceed. Ms Player was advised to provide this information and pay the filing fee by Friday 26 November and advised that if it was not received the matter may be dismissed without further notice.

[5] On 26 November 2021 the Commission contacted Ms Player on her nominated telephone number to discuss the incomplete application. Ms Player asked the Commission if it was possible to place a ‘hold’ on the matter while she decided how she would like to proceed. The Commission advised Ms Player that it is unable to ‘hold’ her matter and that payment was required by close of business that day, otherwise the matter may be dismissed without further notice. The applicant advised that she would consult with her husband and then contact the Commission via telephone or email later that afternoon with her intentions. The Commission advised it would await her correspondence but if nothing was provided by close of business, the matter may be dismissed without further notice.

[6] To date, no further communication has been received and Ms Player has not provided the necessary details as requested.

[7] Section 587(1) of the FW 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

[8] In these circumstances, I have determined that the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act. As such, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An order 1 to this effect will be issued with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR736494.

The case of Deborah Ann Player versus Macquarie Towns Specialist Centre involved an application for an unfair dismissal remedy. The applicant, Ms Player, sought relief for her dismissal from employment by the respondent, Macquarie Towns Specialist Centre. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether Ms Player's dismissal was unfair within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court considered the specific circumstances of the dismissal, including the reasons provided by the employer, the procedural fairness of the dismissal process, and whether there was a valid reason related to Ms Player's performance or conduct. The court also evaluated whether the dismissal was a proportionate response to the issues raised by the employer. Ms Player argued that her dismissal was unjust and that the employer had not followed the correct procedures. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the dismissal was fair and justified under the circumstances.

The court found that the employer had failed to adequately investigate the issues leading to the dismissal and did not provide Ms Player with a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. The court concluded that the dismissal was unfair and ordered that Ms Player be reinstated to her position or, alternatively, be paid compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The court also directed that the employer pay Ms Player's legal costs associated with the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established