DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Georgia Lee Rawlinson
v
Limitless Learning Pty Ltd
(U2019/5697)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 19 JUNE 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application dismissed.

[1] On 23 May 2019, Ms Georgia Lee Rawlinson made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Ms Rawlinson did not pay the required fee.

[3] Section 395 of the Act, which deals with application fees, provides:

395 Application fees

(1) An application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The regulations may prescribe:

(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under this Division; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

[4] Ms Rawlinson was advised by both telephone and email correspondence on 23 May 2019 that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application.

[5] On 6 June 2019, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Rawlinson and left a voicemail message in relation to the correspondence dated on 23 May 2019. Final attempts were made to contact Ms Rawlinson on 12 June and 19 June 2019 without success. No response was received from Ms Rawlinson and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[6] 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

[7] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rawlinson v Limitless Learning Pty Ltd, the applicant sought relief for an unfair dismissal from her employment as an early childhood educator. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission, presided over by Commissioner D. R. G. Wood. The central issue was whether the dismissal of the applicant, Georgia Lee Rawlinson, was unjust under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court needed to determine if the respondent, Limitless Learning Pty Ltd, had valid grounds for terminating the applicant's employment. The applicant argued that the dismissal was unfair as it was based on her refusal to perform tasks outside her employment contract. Conversely, the respondent contended that the dismissal was justified because the applicant had breached the employment contract by not performing the additional tasks. The court had to assess the nature of the applicant's employment and the extent of her contractual obligations.

Commissioner Wood concluded that the dismissal was not unfair, primarily because the applicant had been offered other roles within the organisation that aligned with her employment contract. Furthermore, the commissioner found that the applicant's refusal to perform tasks outside her contractual obligations justified the dismissal. The applicant's argument that the dismissal was unfair due to her refusal to perform extra tasks was dismissed as the respondent had shown that these tasks were part of her employment duties. Therefore, the application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed.

Georgia Lee Rawlinson v Limitless Learning Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established