Haylee Vanstone v Wide Bay Hospital & Health Service

[2022] FWC 1187

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Haylee Vanstone

Wide Bay Hospital & Health Service

(U2022/3454)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 18 MAY 2022

Application for relief from unfair dismissal- national system employer – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

On 22 March 2022, Mrs Haylee Vanstone made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

On 23 March 2022, the Commission attempted to contact Mrs Vanstone via her nominated telephone number to discuss her application. Mrs Vanstone did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting she contact the Commission to discuss that employees who were not employed by a national system employer were ineligible to make an application for unfair dismissal remedy

Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mrs Vanstone’s nominated email address advising that, based on the information contained in the application, the Wide Bay Hospital & Health Service may not be a national system employer and to urgently seek further advice on this issue, as the Commission may not have jurisdiction to deal with her application. The correspondence also required Mrs Vanstone to advise the Commission within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her application and warned that the application may be dismissed if no response was received. An SMS notification was also sent to her nominated telephone number, advising there was a problem with her application and requesting that she contact the Commission.

As the required information was not received, on 04 April 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mrs Vanstone on her nominated telephone number. She did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting she contact the Commission urgently to discuss the application.

To date, Mrs Vanstone has not contacted the Commission or provided any further information.

Division 1 of Part 3-2 of the FW Act is concerned with the “unfair dismissal of national system employees, and the granting of remedies for unfair dismissal”. Further, s.380 of the FW Act provides that, under this Part, an “employee” means a national system employee, and “employer” means a national system employer”. Mrs Vanstone and Wide Bay Hospital & Health Service do not respectively fall within the scope of this definition.

Section 587(1) of the FW Act provides as follows:

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 prospect of success.

In this circumstance, I have determined that the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act.

Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Haylee Vanstone filed an application for unfair dismissal against Wide Bay Hospital and Health Service with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) on 22 March 2022. The FWC attempted to contact Vanstone on multiple occasions to discuss her application, but she did not respond. The FWC emailed Vanstone to inform her that the Wide Bay Hospital and Health Service may not be a national system employer, and therefore, the FWC may not have jurisdiction to deal with her application. The FWC requested that Vanstone respond within 14 days, or the application may be dismissed. Vanstone did not respond, and the FWC attempted to contact her again, but she did not answer. The FWC dismissed the application under s.587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 because it was not made in accordance with the Act. The Commissioner found that Vanstone and Wide Bay Hospital and Health Service do not fall within the scope of the definition of "employee" and "employer" under Division 1 of Part 3-2 of the FW Act, which is concerned with the "unfair dismissal of national system employees, and the granting of remedies for unfair dismissal." Therefore, the application was dismissed.

The legal issue in this case was whether the FWC had jurisdiction to hear Vanstone's application for unfair dismissal. The FWC determined that it did not have jurisdiction because Vanstone and Wide Bay Hospital and Health Service do not fall within the scope of the definition of "employee" and "employer" under Division 1 of Part 3-2 of the FW Act. The FWC also found that the application was not made in accordance with the Act because it was unclear whether Wide Bay Hospital and Health Service was a national system employer. The FWC had previously contacted Vanstone to discuss these issues, but she did not respond. As a result, the FWC dismissed the application under s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act.

The FWC's reasoning was based on the fact that Vanstone and Wide Bay Hospital and Health Service do not fall within the scope of the definition of "employee" and "employer" under Division 1 of Part 3-2 of the FW Act. The FWC had attempted to contact Vanstone to discuss this issue, but she did not respond. The FWC also found that the application was not made in accordance with the Act because it was unclear whether Wide Bay Hospital and Health Service was a national system employer. The FWC warned Vanstone that the application may be dismissed if she did not respond, but she did not provide any further information. As a result, the FWC dismissed the application under s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act.

The final orders of the FWC were that the application for unfair dismissal was dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued shortly.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established