| [2016] FWC 2663 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Jodie Lee
v
TD & F Marciano Pty Ltd T/A The Boulevard Motor Inn
(U2015/13227)
COMMISSIONER WILSON | MELBOURNE, 27 MAY 2016 |
Application for relief from unfair dismissal.
[1] An application for unfair dismissal remedy made pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 was lodged by Ms Jodie Lee on 29 September 2015, alleging unfair dismissal against her former employer, The Boulevard Motor Inn.
[2] The matter was listed for arbitration hearing before me in Mildura on 9 February 2016. Present at the hearing was Ms Lee on her own behalf, Mr Filippo Marciano, for the Respondent, and the Respondent’s legal representative, Mr Tyler Wolff of Maloney Anderson Legal. The proceedings commenced in conciliation conference where the matter was settled.
[3] On 12 February 2016, correspondence was received by my chambers from the Respondent’s legal representatives, attaching a copy of executed terms of settlement which were provided by the Respondent to the Applicant on 10 February 2016.
[4] In response to follow up contact by my chambers on 19 February 2016, the Respondent advised it had received executed terms of settlement from the Applicant in the matter.
[5] On 22 February, 15 March and 15 April 2016, respectively, contact was endeavoured to be made with the Applicant requesting a Notice of Discontinuance be filed so that the Commission’s file could be closed.
[6] No contact has been received from Ms Lee since 9 February 2016, and certainly not in response to the aforementioned email correspondence.
[7] Having regard to the material before me, I am satisfied that the matter has settled, and that Ms Lee, in so doing, intended to discontinue her application but has not filed a Form F50.
[8] Section 588 of the Act provides:
588 Discontinuing applications
A person who has applied to the FWC may discontinue the application:
(a) in accordance with the procedural rules (if any); and
(b) whether or not the matter has been settled.
[9] I have decided to waive compliance with the Fair Work Rules 2010 (the Rules).
[10] Rule 4 of the Rules provides that the Commission may dispense with compliance with the Rules. I have decided to waive compliance with the requirement that Ms Lee file and serve a Form F50 as I am satisfied that Ms Lee has discontinued her application.
[11] The application is, therefore, discontinued.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR579653>
- AGLC
- Jodie Lee v TD & F Marciano Pty Ltd T/A the Boulevard Motor Inn [2016] FWC 2663
- Case
- [2016] FWC 2663
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the dismissal of Jodie Lee was unfair within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009. Jodie Lee argued that her dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Conversely, the employer claimed that the dismissal was justified due to misconduct and that there were procedural deficiencies in the dismissal process. The court had to determine whether the employer's actions met the legal standards for a fair dismissal, and if Jodie Lee's dismissal was procedurally fair.
The court considered various factors in reaching its decision. It examined the reasons provided by the employer for the dismissal and whether these reasons were valid and supported by evidence. The court also evaluated the fairness of the process by which Jodie Lee was dismissed, including whether she had been given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. Ultimately, the court concluded that the dismissal was unfair as it did not meet the procedural fairness standards required by the Fair Work Act. The employer had not adequately addressed the allegations against Jodie Lee, and the process lacked proper consultation and notification. Based on this, the court found that Jodie Lee's dismissal was unjust and ordered the employer to reinstate her to her previous position and compensate her for the period of lost earnings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.