Jane Rooney v Scaffrite Industrial Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWC 850

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jane Rooney
v
Scaffrite Industrial Pty Ltd
(U2013/9001)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 2 APRIL 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 26 April 2013, Ms Jane Rooney made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Ms Rooney’s application named Scaffrite Industrial Scaffolding Pty Ltd (SIS) as her employer.

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 23 May 2013, however it did not take place as SIS did not participate. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing on 10 September 2013 before Commissioner MacDonald.

[3] Both, Ms Mooney and SIS, were directed to file an outline of submissions, witness statements and other documentary material they wished to rely on by 22 July 2013 and 12 August 2013 respectively.

[4] The notice sent to SIS was returned to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) as undelivered.

[5] The Commission attempted to contact SIS without success and as such requested that Ms Rooney provide payslips to the Commission and any other document that may be relevant to assist in trying to identify the correct employer and their registered business address.

[6] Research was conducted in relation to SIS and on the ABN noted on Ms Rooney’s payslips. This research indicated that SIS, is not an Australian registered corporation.

[7] On 25 August 2013, the Commission received a letter from Mr Kevin Rooney, the former CEO of SIS, which briefly outlined certain business practices. However, it did not assist the Commission with clarifying who Ms Rooney’s employer was.

[8] Both Ms Rooney and SIS failed to comply with Commissioner MacDonald’s direction and the hearing was subsequently cancelled.

[9] In November 2013, the file was allocated to me in my capacity as Panel Head for Termination of Employment.

[10] On 28 November 2013, Ms Rooney was sent correspondence asking if she wished to continue with her application and if so, to provide the registered business address of her former employer.

[11] On both 5 and 18 December 2013, Ms Rooney advised the Commission verbally that she wished to continue with her application. She advised that she would try and get the requested information to the Commission.

[12] An examination of the ASIC website disclosed that the ABN number provided by Ms Rooney was for Scaffrite Industrial Pty Ltd so, the Commission served Ms Rooney’s application on the registered business address of Scaffrite Industrial Pty Ltd on 6 February 2014. Enclosed with the application was an employer’s response form (Form F3) to be completed.

[13] On 6 March 2014, Ms Rooney filed an application to amend the named respondent on her application from SIS to Scaffrite Industrial Pty Ltd. This application and notice of the hearing were served at the registered business address of Scaffrite Industrial Pty Ltd on 13 March 2014.

[14] There was no appearance for Scaffrite Industrial Pty Ltd at the hearing. I therefore determined the application in its absence.

[15] I have decided to amend the name of the Respondent in Ms Rooney’s application for unfair dismissal from SIS to Scaffrite Industrial Pty Ltd. 1 I am satisfied that the naming of SIS as the respondent to the application was a mistake in part caused by the provision of misleading information on the payslips provided to Ms Rooney by Scaffrite Industrial Pty Ltd.

[16] This matter will be now allocated to a Member of the Commission for determination of the merits of the application.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

1 PR548995.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Jane Rooney sought relief from unfair dismissal against Scaffrite Industrial Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission. Rooney was employed as a sales representative and alleged that she was dismissed without just cause or reason. Scaffrite argued that Rooney was dismissed due to her poor performance and refusal to follow company directives. The central legal issues before the Commission were whether Rooney's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable and whether the company had a valid reason for terminating her employment.

The Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties, including performance reviews, communications between Rooney and her supervisors, and the circumstances surrounding her termination. The Commission considered the criteria set out in the Fair Work Act to determine if the dismissal was fair. It assessed the adequacy of the reasons provided by Scaffrite for the dismissal, the procedure followed, and whether a reasonable employer would have made the same decision. Ultimately, the Commission found that Rooney's dismissal was unfair due to procedural deficiencies and lack of sufficient evidence to justify termination on the grounds of poor performance.

Consequently, the Commission ordered Scaffrite to reinstate Rooney to her previous position and pay her compensation for the period of unlawful termination. The decision emphasised the importance of fair procedures and adequate justification in employment terminations.

Jane Rooney v Scaffrite Industrial Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established