Erin Guhl v Dredging International Australia Pty Ltd T/A Dredging International Australia

[2014] FWC 7569

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections

Erin Guhl
v
Dredging International Australia Pty Ltd T/A Dredging International Australia; Bechtel (Western Australia) Pty Ltd
(C2014/4287)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY

PERTH, 24 OCTOBER 2014

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal.

[1] On 17 October 2014, I issued a Decision [[2014] FWC 7057] that had the effect of adding Bechtel (Western Australia) Pty Ltd (the Second Respondent) to the application lodged by Ms Erin Guhl (the Applicant) against Dredging International Australia Pty Ltd T/A Dredging International Australia (the First Respondent).

[2] The Applicant had also sought to amend the grounds as they applied to the First Respondent by having the details of the application particularised and grounds in support of the application more expressly identified.

[3] I provided the First Respondent with the opportunity to provide submissions in relation to the application to amend the grounds.

[4] On 21 October 2014, the First Respondent wrote to my Chambers advising that they neither consented nor objected to these amendments.

[5] I have decided to grant the Applicant leave to amend the application. The First Respondent and the Second Respondent should provide an Employer Response (Form F8A) by 5:00pm (AWST) on Monday, 24 November 2014.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Final written submissions:

Dredging International Australia Pty Ltd T/A Dredging International Australia (First Respondent), 21 October 2014.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Erin Guhl v Dredging International Australia Pty Ltd T/A Dredging International Australia, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with addressing an application concerning alleged contraventions involving the dismissal of the applicant, Ms Guhl. The matter arose under the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically focusing on whether the dismissal was unlawful or unjustifiable. Ms Guhl sought to have her dismissal reviewed and potentially reinstated with back pay and damages. Dredging International Australia, represented by counsel, argued that the dismissal was conducted in accordance with company policies and procedural fairness.

The primary legal issues the Commission had to resolve involved whether the dismissal complied with the procedural requirements stipulated under the Fair Work Act, and if the decision to terminate Ms Guhl's employment was reasonable in the circumstances. The Commission needed to consider whether there were any procedural errors in the dismissal process and if the reasons provided for termination were justified. Additionally, the Commission had to assess whether the employer had acted in a manner that was procedurally fair and whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

In examining the evidence presented, the Commission noted that the employer had followed its internal procedures in dismissing Ms Guhl. However, the Commission found that there were procedural shortcomings in the manner in which the dismissal was executed. Specifically, the employer did not provide Ms Guhl with adequate information about the reasons for her dismissal and the opportunity to respond to the allegations. The Commission concluded that these procedural errors rendered the dismissal unfair. Consequently, the Commission ordered that Ms Guhl be reinstated to her previous position with back pay and compensation for 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