DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Jaimielee Paterson
v
Aminjarrinja Enterprises Pty Ltd
(U2015/14178)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 31 MARCH 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal - application dismissed pursuant to section 399A of the Act.

[1] On 11 November 2015 Ms Jamielee Paterson made an application for unfair dismissal remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). Ms Paterson’s employment had been terminated by Aminjarrinja Enterprises on 20 October 2015.

[2] The matter was the subject of conciliation on 10 December 2015, however the matter was not resolved. Directions were issued by me on 22 December 2015 and the matter was listed for hearing on 23 February 2016, with the hearing to address both Ms Paterson’s application for an extension of time for the lodgement of her application and the merits of her unfair dismissal application.

[3] Ms Paterson was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material she wished to rely on by 22 January 2016.

[4] Ms Paterson did not comply with this direction. The Respondent then filed an application to dismiss Ms Paterson’s unfair dismissal application pursuant to s.399A(1)(b) of the Act on 17 February 2016.

[5] On 17 February 2016, my chambers issued written correspondence to both parties advising that the s.399A application would be dealt with at the hearing listed for 23 February 2016. Ms Paterson attended this hearing, as well as Ms Tammy Wong, solicitor for the Respondent. Arising from this hearing, Further Directions were issued by me on 23 February 2016. The Further Directions provided Ms Paterson with a further opportunity to file and serve written submissions both in support of her application for an extension of time for the lodgement of her application and the merits of her application. The Further Directions also required her to address the outstanding s.399A application and provide reasons for her failure to comply with the 22 December 2015 Directions. The Further Directions required compliance from Ms Paterson by 8 March 2016. Ms Paterson was advised that if she failed to comply with the Further Directions, her application may be dismissed.

[6] Ms Paterson did not file any material with the Commission.

[7] 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.

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

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

[10] Ms Paterson has provided no explanation for her failure to comply with directions of the Commission, and on two occasions. I find this failure to be unreasonable.

[11] The power to dismiss an application if the non-compliance was unreasonable is discretionary. Ms Paterson has failed to respond to the directions of the Commission on two instances. She has shown no willingness to prosecute her case. In those circumstances, I will exercise my discretion and dismiss Ms Paterson’s application for unfair dismissal remedy. An Order will be issued in conjunction with this decision to that effect.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the matter of Jaimielee Paterson against Aminjarrinja Enterprises Pty Ltd, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was called upon to determine whether relief should be granted to the applicant, Paterson, who sought redress for an unfair dismissal. Paterson alleged that her termination from employment was unjust and contrary to the principles of fairness as outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. Aminjarrinja Enterprises Pty Ltd contested the claim, arguing that the dismissal was lawful and in accordance with the procedural and substantive fairness required by law.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether Paterson's dismissal was truly unfair and, if so, what form of relief would be appropriate. The court considered whether there was a valid reason related to Paterson's performance or conduct for her dismissal, and whether the employer had followed proper procedures in terminating her employment. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate if the employer's actions constituted a breach of the general protections against unfair dismissal.

Upon reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, the court found that Aminjarrinja Enterprises Pty Ltd had acted within its rights when dismissing Paterson. The employer presented sufficient grounds for termination, including performance issues and a failure to comply with reasonable instructions. The court also determined that the employer had adhered to the necessary procedural steps in effecting the dismissal. Consequently, the court concluded that the dismissal was not unfair within the meaning of the Act, and thus, the application for relief was dismissed pursuant to section 399A of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court did not deem it necessary to grant any form of relief to Paterson.

Jaimielee Paterson v Aminjarrinja Enterprises Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established