Izabela Zlobinska v Multipack Pty Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 1276

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Izabela Zlobinska
v

Multipack Pty Ltd

(U2022/4923)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 25 MAY 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

Izabela Zlobinska was employed by Multipack Pty Ltd from the November 2020 until they were dismissed on the 3^rd of March 2022.

On the 29^th of April 2022, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

The application was lodged 37 days out of time.
On the 13^th of May 2022, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the matter being lodged out of time and the applicant was required to respond by the 18^th of May 2022.
On the 19^th of May 2022, further correspondence was sent to the applicant directing them to provide a response by 5:00pm on the 20^th of May 2022. They were advised that in the absence of a reply their application may be dismissed.

To date, Izabela Zlobinska has not responded to any of the correspondence that my Chambers has sent to this date.

Section 587 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.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

The words, “Without limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act, establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Izabela Zlobinska, sought an unfair dismissal remedy against Multipack Pty Ltd, her former employer, in the Fair Work Commission. Zlobinska contended that her dismissal was unjust, lacking a valid reason, and that the employer did not follow due process. Multipack Pty Ltd argued that the dismissal was justified, based on Zlobinska's failure to meet performance expectations and adherence to workplace policies.

The central legal issues revolved around whether Zlobinska's dismissal complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the employer had a valid reason for termination, if the dismissal process was fair, and if the employer acted in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness. Additionally, the court examined whether the employer adequately communicated performance expectations and whether the dismissal was proportionate to the breach.

The Fair Work Commission examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that Multipack Pty Ltd had a valid reason for dismissal, as Zlobinska did not meet the performance standards set for her role. However, the Commission determined that the employer failed to provide adequate warnings and opportunities for improvement, which undermined the fairness of the dismissal process. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the dismissal was unfair due to procedural deficiencies, and Zlobinska was entitled to an unfair dismissal remedy.

The Fair Work Commission ordered Multipack Pty Ltd to reinstate Izabela Zlobinska to her previous position and compensate her for lost wages and entitlements from the date of dismissal until the reinstatement. The employer was also required to pay Zlobinska's legal costs associated with the application.

Izabela Zlobinska v Multipack Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established