Donna Goetz v Childrens Protection Society Inc

[2024] FWC 1452

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Donna Goetz
v

Childrens Protection Society Inc.

(C2024/2479)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN

MELBOURNE, 4 JUNE 2024

Application under s 365 – application within time

For reasons given on transcript earlier this morning, I was satisfied that the Commission had jurisdiction to deal with this matter because the application was filed within 21 days after the dismissal took effect. In summary, the applicant had made an earlier online application, within time, attaching a blank form F8, her termination letter, and correspondence from before the dismissal in which the applicant raised complaints about her employment. Although the form F8 was blank, it was clear from the attached correspondence that the applicant alleged that her dismissal was in contravention of Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). The earlier application was administratively closed by the registry when they were unable to contact the applicant about her blank form F8. But the application was never discontinued and therefore remained extant. The second F8 application document, which was filed after the 21-day period, was in substance an amendment of the first, which I allowed under s 586. Having determined that the Commission had jurisdiction, I proceeded to conduct a conference to deal with the matter as required by s 368. The Commission has now completed its function under the Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

D. Goetz for herself
J. Stamatelos for the Childrens Protection Society Inc.

Conference details:

2024
Melbourne (by telephone)
4 June

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission (FWC) was an application by Donna Goetz against the Childrens Protection Society Inc. for alleged unfair dismissal. The primary issue was whether the Commission had jurisdiction over the application filed by Goetz, as it was submitted beyond the statutory 21-day period post-dismissal. Goetz had initially lodged an application within the requisite time frame, attaching necessary documents including a blank form F8, but the application was administratively closed due to an inability to contact her regarding the incomplete form. Subsequently, Goetz filed a second application, which was essentially an amendment of the first. The Childrens Protection Society Inc. argued that the second application was out of time, while Goetz contended that the initial application remained valid and the second was a mere amendment.

The legal issue before the Deputy President was whether the second application could be considered a valid amendment to the initial application, thereby preserving the Commission's jurisdiction. The Deputy President found that the initial application was never formally discontinued and remained extant, and that the second application was, in effect, an amendment. Under section 586 of the Fair Work Act 2009, the Deputy President allowed the amendment, thereby establishing the Commission's jurisdiction over the matter. The Deputy President proceeded to conduct a conference to address the substantive matter of the unfair dismissal claim.

In the decision, the Deputy President ruled that the Commission had jurisdiction to hear the matter as the second application was an amendment to the initial valid application. The Deputy President did not delve into the merits of the unfair dismissal claim but confirmed the procedural steps moving forward. The orders included the allowance of the amendment and the scheduling of a conference to address the substantive issues of the unfair dismissal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established