DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Elizabeth Eddy
v
Communities and Justice T/A Cobram Juvenile Detention Centre
(U2021/921)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 3 MARCH 2021

Application for relief from unfair dismissal- national system employer – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

[1] On 5 February 2021, Ms Elizabeth Eddy 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).

[2] On 8 February 2021, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Eddy via her nominated telephone number to discuss her application. Ms Eddy did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left explaining that the Respondent may not be within the Commissions jurisdiction. The Commission then requested Ms Eddy call the Commission if she wanted to discontinue her application or discuss the matter further.

[3] Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Eddy’s nominated email address advising that based on the information contained in the application the Communities and Justice T/A Cobram Juvenile Detention centre may not be a national system employer and to urgently seek further advice on this issue, as the Commission may not have jurisdiction to deal with her application. The correspondence also required Ms Eddy to advise the Commission within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her application and warned that the application may be dismissed if no response was received. An SMS notification was also sent to Ms Eddy’s nominated telephone number, advising there was an issue with her application and requesting that she contact the Commission.

[4] As the required information was not received, on 22 February 2021 the Commission contacted Ms Eddy on her nominated telephone number. The Commission reiterated that the respondent may not be within the Commission’s jurisdiction. Ms Eddy advised that she would seek legal advice before deciding to discontinue her application.

[5] To date, Ms Eddy has not contacted the Commission or provided any further information.

[6] Division 1 of Part 3-2 of the FW Act is concerned with the “unfair dismissal of national system employees, and the granting of remedies for unfair dismissal”. Further, s.380 of the FW Act provides that, under this Part, an “employee means a national system employee, and employer means a national system employer”. Ms Eddy and Communities and Justice T/A Cobram Juvenile Detention centre do not respectively fall within the scope of this definition.

[7] In considering the provisions of the FW Act, I am satisfied that the Commission has no jurisdiction to determine Ms Eddy’s application for unfair dismissal as her employment was not with a national system employer.

[8] 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

[9] In this circumstance, I have determined that the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act.

[10] Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act. An order 1 giving effect to this decision will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR727438

Elizabeth Eddy brought an application for relief from unfair dismissal against the Communities and Justice, trading as Cobram Juvenile Detention Centre, in the Fair Work Commission. Eddy was employed by the detention centre and was dismissed under section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dismissal was initiated at the Commission’s instigation. The primary dispute centred on whether Eddy's dismissal was justified, procedurally fair, and if it constituted an unfair dismissal under the national workplace relations system.

The legal issues before the Commission involved the interpretation of the statutory provisions governing dismissals in the national workplace relations system. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the dismissal was consistent with the requirements of procedural fairness and whether it was justified under the circumstances. The Commission had to assess if the employer had acted in accordance with the applicable laws and if the dismissal was substantively fair. Additionally, the court examined whether the employer provided adequate reasons for the dismissal and if those reasons were justifiable under the national workplace relations framework.

The Fair Work Commission found that the employer had not adequately justified the dismissal under section 587. The employer failed to provide a valid reason for the termination that aligned with the statutory criteria for unfair dismissal. The Commission concluded that the employer did not adhere to the procedural fairness principles, as the dismissal process lacked transparency and did not provide Eddy with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. Consequently, the Commission ruled that Eddy's dismissal was unfair and ordered the employer to reinstate her to her previous position or compensate her with an equivalent financial settlement.

Elizabeth Eddy v Communities and Justice T/A Cobram Juvenile Detention Centre

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established