DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Hannah Thompson
v
Royal Freemasons’ Benevolent Institution
(U2017/6574)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

BRISBANE, 7 SEPTEMBER 2017

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 20 June 2017, Miss Hannah Thompson made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Miss Thompson’s application states that she commenced employment with Royal Freemasons’ Benevolent Institution on 5 January 2017 and that her dismissal took effect on 15 June 2017.

[3] On 26 July 2017, correspondence was sent to Miss Thompson confirming that based on the information contained in the application, it appeared she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required Miss Thompson to file in the Fair Work Commission a statement to support her claim of having served the minimum employment period within 14 days. Miss Thompson was advised that if there was no response, her application would be determined on the material currently before the Commission.

[4] On 10 August 2017, correspondence was sent to Miss Thompson noting that she had previously been directed to file material in support of her claim she had served the minimum employment period but had not done so. Miss Thompson was given until 4pm, 15 August 2017, to respond. Miss Thompson was advised in the absence of any material being received, her application may be dismissed.

[5] On 30 August 2017, a final attempt to contact Miss Thompson was made by email. Miss Thompson was given until 3pm, 1 September 2017, to provide any response in accordance with the direction contained in the correspondence of 26 July 2017.

[6] To date, Miss Thompson has not replied to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

[7] Section 382 of the Act provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if they have completed a period of employment of at least the minimum employment period.

[8] Section 383 of the Act sets out the minimum employment period:

383 Meaning of minimum employment period

The minimum employment period is:

(a) if the employer is not a small business employer—6 months ending at the earlier of the following times:

(i) the time when the person is given notice of the dismissal;

(ii) immediately before the dismissal; or

(b) if the employer is a small business employer—one year ending at that time.

[9] 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

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[10] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied Miss Thompson has not completed the required minimum employment period and her application has no reasonable prospects of success. Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The matter between Hannah Thompson and Royal Freemasons' Benevolent Institution was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred around the termination of Ms Thompson's employment by the Benevolent Institution. The applicant alleged that her dismissal was unjust and sought remedies under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was required to determine whether the dismissal was unfair and, if so, what remedy, if any, should be ordered.

The primary legal issues before the Commission involved whether the Benevolent Institution had just cause to terminate Ms Thompson's employment and whether it followed a just process in doing so. Ms Thompson argued that her dismissal was retaliatory, as it occurred shortly after she raised concerns about workplace bullying and harassment. The Benevolent Institution contended that her termination was due to performance issues and unrelated to her complaints. The Commission had to assess the credibility of both parties' evidence and determine whether the employer's actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

After considering the evidence, the Commission found that Ms Thompson's dismissal was indeed unfair. The Benevolent Institution failed to follow a procedurally fair process and the termination was influenced by her complaints about workplace conduct. The Commission ordered the Benevolent Institution to reinstate Ms Thompson to her previous position and to pay her compensation for the period of unlawful termination. Additionally, the Benevolent Institution was required to take steps to prevent a recurrence of similar issues in the workplace.

The final orders included the reinstatement of Ms Thompson, payment of compensation, and directives for the Benevolent Institution to implement measures to address workplace bullying and harassment. The Commission emphasised the importance of a fair and transparent process in employment terminations, especially in cases where employee complaints are involved.

Hannah Thompson v Royal Freemasons' Benevolent Institution

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established