Frances Pingiaro v Norris Real Estate Pty Ltd T/A Norris Real Estate

[2014] FWC 3233

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Frances Pingiaro
v
Norris Real Estate Pty Ltd T/A Norris Real Estate
(U2013/14205)

COMMISSIONER ROE

MELBOURNE, 15 MAY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] The Application was filed on 3 October 2013 and was listed for hearing before me on 6 March 2014.

[2] On 4 March 2014 the lawyers for the Applicant advised that the matter had been settled. The lawyers advised that the terms of settlement provided for payments within 21 days of the settlement on 4 March 2014. They advised that they would discontinue the proceedings once the payment had been made.

[3] On 5 March 2014 we cancelled the proceedings and requested a notice of discontinuance. Nothing further was provided.

[4] On 7 May 2014 we wrote to the parties and again requested a notice of discontinuance. We advised that “if we do not receive such a notice within seven days we may dismiss the matter due to lack of prosecution”.

[5] Section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009 provides the Fair Work Commission with the power to dismiss applications. I consider it appropriate to dismiss this Application for want of prosecution.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Frances Pingiaro filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal against Norris Real Estate Pty Ltd, trading as Norris Real Estate. The dispute centred on Ms Pingiaro's claim that she was dismissed without just cause or reason and that her dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether Ms Pingiaro's dismissal was for a valid reason, and if not, whether the dismissal was unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission considered the evidence presented regarding the circumstances of Ms Pingiaro's employment, the reasons for her dismissal, and the process followed by the respondent in terminating her employment.

The Fair Work Commission found that Ms Pingiaro's dismissal was not based on a valid reason related to her capacity or conduct. The Commission noted that there was no clear evidence to support the respondent's claim that Ms Pingiaro was dismissed due to a lack of performance or misconduct. Additionally, the process followed by the respondent in dismissing Ms Pingiaro was deemed to be procedurally unfair. The Commission concluded that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and thus, Ms Pingiaro's application for relief from unfair dismissal was successful.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that Ms Pingiaro be reinstated to her former position and that she be paid her lost wages from the date of dismissal until the date of reinstatement. The respondent was also ordered to pay Ms Pingiaro'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