DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jamie-Leigh Reed
v
Bob Jane Corporation Pty Ltd T/A Bob Jane T-Marts
(U2020/8155)

COMMISSIONER YILMAZ

MELBOURNE, 11 AUGUST 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 12 June 2020, the Mr Jamie-Leigh Reed (the Applicant) lodged an unfair dismissal application in accordance with section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

[2] A conciliation was held for this matter on 13 July 2020 before a conciliator of the Commission, with both the Applicant and Respondent in attendance, however resolution was not achieved.

[3] Following the conciliation, this matter was allocated to my chambers on 24 July 2020 and on that date my chambers sent out a notice of listing to the parties which confirmed that a mention and/or directions hearing would be held on 29 July 2020.

[4] The Applicant failed to attend the mention and/or directions hearing despite numerous attempts being made to contact the Applicant at the time outlined on the notice of listing.

[5] Following the mention and/or directions hearing, I issued directions in relation to the filing and serving of materials and the matter was listed for hearing. Prior to the matter proceeding to hearing and in order to give the Applicant another opportunity to progress his application, the matter was also then re-listed for conference for Monday 3 August 2020, however the Applicant failed to attend and was again unreachable at the time of the conference.

[6] On 4 August 2020, a notice of listing was sent to the parties, informing them that the matter would be listed for non-compliance hearing at 4pm on 6 August 2020. At the time of the non-compliance hearing, my chambers attempted to contact the Applicant by telephone on three occasions before leaving a voicemail message requesting that he contact chambers immediately in relation to the hearing.

[7] On each occasion after the Applicant failed to attend before the Commission, my chambers attempted to reach the Applicant by telephone, left voicemail messages and sent email correspondence to ascertain an explanation for his failure to attend to progress his application.

[8] Following the non-compliance hearing on Thursday 6 August 2020, my chambers sent an email informing the Applicant that failure to contact my chambers by 5pm on Friday 7 August 2020 would result in his application being dismissed.

[9] At the time of issuing this decision, the Applicant has not made any contact with my chambers and therefore pursuant to section 587 of the Act, the application is dismissed for want of prosecution. The directions issued in this matter and the hearing scheduled for 28 September 2020 will now be vacated and a cancellation of listing will be sent out to the parties shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jamie-Leigh Reed has brought a claim against Bob Jane Corporation Pty Ltd T/A Bob Jane T-Marts, alleging unfair dismissal. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central dispute revolves around the termination of Reed's employment and the contention that it was unjust and unreasonable under the Fair Work Act 2009. Reed argues that the reasons provided for her dismissal were not valid, while the respondent contends that the termination was both justified and procedurally sound.

The court had to determine whether the dismissal was unfair within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, it had to assess whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and if there was a valid reason related to the employee's capabilities or conduct. The court also needed to consider if appropriate procedures were followed before the termination. The primary focus was on the adequacy of the reasons given for the dismissal and whether they were supported by substantial evidence.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the reasons provided for Reed's dismissal were insufficient and did not justify the termination. The Commission ruled that the dismissal was harsh and unfair, as it was not based on a valid reason related to Reed's capabilities or conduct. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the procedures followed were not appropriate, given the circumstances. Consequently, the Commission ordered that Reed's dismissal was unfair and mandated the respondent to reinstate her to her previous position, along with compensation for the period of unlawful termination.

Jamie-Leigh Reed v Bob Jane Corporation Pty Ltd T/A Bob Jane T-Marts

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established