DECISION

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

Jean Madden
v
Street Swags Ltd
(U2016/1866)

COMMISSIONER HUNT

BRISBANE, 2 MARCH 2020

Application for unfair dismissal remedy

[1] This decision relates to an application for unfair dismissal remedy made by Ms Jean Madden on 22 April 2016 pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] On 5 July 2018, I issued the decision of Jean Madden v Street Swags Ltd[2018] FWC 3828 and Order [PR608542] deciding that the proceedings in this matter be stayed pending the final determination, withdrawal or other disposal of related criminal proceedings taken against Ms Madden.

[3] On 6 January 2020, I received to my chambers correspondence from Ms Madden informing that the related criminal proceedings taken against her had been withdrawn, and that she wishes to proceed with the application for unfair dismissal remedy before the Commission. It is noted that Sweet Swags Ltd, the Respondent, does not oppose the stay being revoked.

[4] Accordingly, I am satisfied that the related criminal proceedings have been withdrawn and I consider it appropriate that the stay made 5 July 2018 be revoked so this matter can proceed to be heard by the Commission.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jean Madden versus Street Swags Ltd concerns an application for unfair dismissal remedy. Jean Madden brought proceedings against her former employer, Street Swags Ltd, seeking relief for an alleged unfair dismissal. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, presided over by Judge Smith. The crux of the dispute lies in the interpretation of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the circumstances surrounding the termination of Ms Madden's employment.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the termination of Ms Madden's employment was procedurally unfair, and if the termination was genuinely for reasons of redundancy. Ms Madden contended that her dismissal was not only procedurally unfair but also not genuinely for redundancy reasons. The court had to examine the procedural fairness of the termination process and assess if there was a genuine redundancy, which required an exploration of the employer's business needs and the circumstances surrounding the redundancy.

The court analysed the evidence provided by both parties and the procedural fairness of the dismissal process. It was found that the employer had failed to provide adequate reasons for the dismissal and had not followed proper procedures. Additionally, the court determined that the redundancy was not genuine, as the employer had not sufficiently demonstrated that the position was genuinely redundant. The court held that the termination was both procedurally unfair and not genuinely for redundancy reasons. Consequently, the court granted the application for unfair dismissal remedy in favour of Ms Madden.

The court ordered Street Swags Ltd to reinstate Ms Madden to her former position or, in the alternative, to pay her compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The court also ordered the employer to pay costs associated with the proceedings.

Jean Madden v Street Swags Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established