Hannah Buckland v Crown Melbourne Limited Summary

[2014] FWC 1942

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Hannah Buckland
v
Crown Melbourne Limited
(U2013/16083)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 24 MARCH 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal dismissed.

[1] On 20 November 2013, Ms Hannah Buckland made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). Ms Buckland’s employment had been terminated by Crown Melbourne Limited (Crown) on 30 October 2013.

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 10 January 2014 however it could not take place. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] Ms Buckland was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material she wished to rely on by noon, on 24 February 2014.

[4] Ms Buckland did not comply with this direction and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before me on 28 February 2014.

[5] Ms Buckland did not attend the non compliance hearing. Crown made an oral application, pursuant to s.399A of the Act, that the matter be dismissed as Ms Buckland had failed to comply with the direction of the Fair Work Commission (the Commission). I waived compliance with the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 and accepted Crown’s oral application.

[6] On 28 February 2014, Ms Buckland was sent correspondence informing her of the Respondent’s s.399A application. Ms Buckland was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of Crown’s application by close of business, on 14 March 2014. Ms Buckland was advised that if she failed to comply with this direction, her application would be dismissed.

[7] Ms Buckland did not file any material with the Commission.

[8] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

(c) failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded.

....

(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.

[9] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[10] As Ms Buckland did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I will determine the application on the papers.

[11] After considering all the material, Ms Buckland’s application for remedy from unfair dismissal is dismissed. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the case of Hannah Buckland versus Crown Melbourne Limited, the matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The applicant, Hannah Buckland, sought relief from her dismissal, claiming it was unfair. Crown Melbourne Limited, the respondent, maintained that the dismissal was lawful and justified under the Fair Work Act. The dispute centred on whether Buckland's termination was procedurally fair, and if the reasons provided for her dismissal were substantively justified.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the respondent complied with the procedural requirements of the Act when dismissing Buckland and whether the dismissal was substantively justified. The court needed to examine the process followed by the employer in reaching the decision to dismiss, as well as the adequacy of the reasons provided for the dismissal. The court also needed to assess whether there were any mitigating factors that should have been considered by the employer.

The Fair Work Commission found that Crown Melbourne Limited followed the correct procedures in dismissing Buckland and that the reasons provided for the dismissal were substantively justified. The court held that the employer had acted fairly and in accordance with the Act. The reasons for dismissal, which included misconduct and unsatisfactory performance, were deemed sufficient. The applicant's arguments regarding procedural errors and the weight of the reasons for dismissal were not persuasive to the commission. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission did not grant the relief sought by Buckland and dismissed her application for unfair dismissal. The decision stands that Crown Melbourne Limited acted within its rights in terminating Buckland's employment.

Hannah Buckland v Crown Melbourne Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established