Hansen v Mt Martha Community Learning Centre Inc

Jocelyn Hansen, the applicant, brought proceedings against Mt Martha Community Learning Centre Inc, the first respondent, and Kevin Murphy, the General Manager of the first respondent and the second respondent, asserting that her dismissal from employment was unlawful under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and constituted wrongful termination of her employment contract. The central dispute revolves around the circumstances and legality of her dismissal, as well as various other claims regarding her employment terms and conditions.

The court was tasked with determining whether Hansen's dismissal was lawful under the Fair Work Act, specifically whether it was justified by her conduct, which included an alleged assault on a subordinate employee. Another issue was whether the dismissal was related to her previous complaints about her employment, thus constituting adverse action. Furthermore, the court examined whether Hansen's rights under the workplace agreement, including the right to a fair hearing and an unbiased process of judgment, were breached. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Hansen was denied her entitlement to annual leave loading and sick leave, and whether the statutory right to notice of termination was applicable in light of the alleged serious misconduct.

The court found that Hansen's dismissal was not lawful as it contravened certain provisions of the Fair Work Act. The court held that the dismissal was not justified by her conduct, particularly the alleged assault, and that there was no evidence to support such a claim. The court also ruled that the dismissal was related to Hansen's previous complaints, constituting adverse action. Moreover, the court determined that Hansen was denied her right to a fair hearing and an unbiased process of judgment as her supervisor was involved in the investigator's recommendations and exercised the right to dismiss her. The court further found that Hansen was not given her entitlement to annual leave loading and that the statutory right to notice of termination did not apply due to the exception for serious misconduct.

The court ordered that the parties file and serve brief written submissions with respect to the penalty, if any, that should be imposed on the first respondent for its contravention of certain provisions of the Fair Work Act. The application was otherwise dismissed.