DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Dezerae Miller
v
Serco Australia Pty Limited
(U2016/6263)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 9 AUGUST 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 19 April 2016, Ms Dezeraie Miller made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] The application form filed by Ms Miller in the Commission advised that Serco Australia Pty Limited was the named respondent in this matter.

[3] On 23 May 2016, Lawyers for Serco objected to the application on the grounds that Ms Miller was at no time an employee of Serco and/or any Serco entity and that Ms Miller was at all times employed by Adecco Australia Pty Ltd.

[4] Conciliation was listed on 24 May 2016 however could not take place.

[5] On 20 June 2016, Deputy President Gooley’s chambers forwarded correspondence to Ms Miller as follows:

“Dear Ms Miller,

Serco Australia Pty Ltd has objected to your unfair dismissal application as it alleges you were employed by Adecco Australia Pty Ltd.

If you agree that you were employed by Adecco you need to file an application, within 7 days of this letter, to amend the named employer in your application. Please use the attached Form F1 should you wish to do so.

A hearing will then be held at which you and Adecco will have an opportunity to address the application.

If you wish to proceed with your application against Serco, please advise chambers.gooley.dp@fwc.gov.au within 7 days of this letter and directions will be issued to deal with Serco’s objection.”

[6] On 27 June 2016, a telephone message and a SMS message were forwarded to Ms Miller requesting she contact the Commission.

[7] On 27 June 2016, Ms Miller telephoned the Commission to advise she had not looked at her emails and would be getting back to us.

[8] On 30 June 2016 and 21 July 2016, telephone messages were left for Ms Miller to contact the Commission.

[9] On 21 July 2016, the Commission forwarded an email message and a SMS message to Ms Miller requesting she contact the Commission.

[10] Ms Miller has not contacted the Commission or provided the necessary details as requested.

[11] Section 587(1) 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

[12] Having regard to the circumstances in this matter, I am satisfied that Ms Miller’s application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[13] Consequently, the application is dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Dezerae Miller brought an application for relief from unfair dismissal against Serco Australia Pty Limited in the Fair Work Commission. Miller, a former employee of Serco, sought relief on the grounds that her dismissal was unfair. The crux of the dispute was whether Serco had just cause to terminate Miller's employment and if the process followed was procedurally fair.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether Serco had valid reasons for terminating Miller's employment and if the termination process adhered to procedural fairness. Miller argued that the reasons provided for her dismissal were not substantial and that the process leading to her termination was flawed. Serco contended that the dismissal was justified and that all procedural requirements were met.

The Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties and assessed the validity of the reasons for dismissal and the fairness of the process. The Commission found that the reasons given for Miller's dismissal were insufficient and that the process was not procedurally fair. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was upheld. The Commission ordered that Miller be reinstated to her previous position or, if that was not possible, compensated with an equivalent alternative position. Additionally, Serco was directed to pay Miller's legal costs.

Dezerae Miller v Serco Australia Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established