DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jill Douglas
v
Codestar Pty Ltd T/A R & D Services Security & Cleaning
(U2014/5996)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 4 APRIL 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 3 June 2014, following advice from liquidators of Codestar Pty Ltd T/A R&D Services Security & Cleaning, I issued a decision 1 staying the application made by Ms Douglas as the creditors of Codestar Pty Ltd passed a resolution to voluntarily wind up the company.

[2] On 17 March 2016, the Commission performed a search on the ASIC company database which revealed that Codestar Pty Ltd (ACN: 114 757 425) had deregistered on 7 June 2015.

[3] Correspondence was sent to Ms Douglas’ representative on 18 March 2016 advising that unless Ms Douglas filed a notice of discontinuance, I will issue a decision dismissing the application.

[4] On 31 March 2016, Ms Douglas’ representative responded and advised that it did not receive any instructions to discontinue the application and as such, understands that the application will be dismissed at the Commission’s own volition.

[5] Section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009 provides powers to the Commission to dismiss applications in specific circumstances. Having regard to the facts of this matter, I am satisfied that Ms Douglas’ application has no reasonable prospects of success 2 and it should therefore be dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

1 [2014] FWC 3667.

2 S.587(1)(c) of the Act.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of Douglas v Codestar Pty Ltd, the Federal Court considered an application for relief from unfair dismissal brought by Jill Douglas against Codestar Pty Ltd, trading as R & D Services Security & Cleaning. Douglas, a former employee, alleged that she was unfairly dismissed from her employment by Codestar. The court was tasked with determining whether Douglas's dismissal was indeed unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Codestar had just cause to terminate Douglas's employment. Douglas contended that her dismissal was unjust and constituted an unfair dismissal under the Act, as she believed it was related to her engagement in protected industrial activities. Conversely, Codestar argued that the dismissal was justified on grounds of misconduct, specifically alleging that Douglas failed to comply with the employer's policies and instructions. The court had to evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to ascertain the validity of the dismissal and whether it was procedurally fair.

After a thorough examination of the evidence and arguments, the court concluded that Codestar did not have just cause to dismiss Douglas. The judge found that the reasons provided by Codestar for the dismissal were not substantiated and that there were procedural shortcomings in the termination process. Furthermore, the judge determined that Douglas's dismissal was connected to her participation in protected activities, thus rendering it unfair under the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the court granted the application for relief from unfair dismissal and ordered Codestar to reinstate Douglas to her former position with appropriate back pay and compensation.

Jill Douglas v Codestar Pty Ltd T/A R & D Services Security & Cleaning

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established