Judith Kaye Boyle v S.A. Health RMC Local Health Network

Case [2023] FWC 1092


[2023] FWC 1092

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Judith Kaye Boyle
v

S.A. Health RMC Local Health Network

(U2023/2903)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL

MELBOURNE, 9 MAY 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

  1. On 4 April 2023 Ms Judith Kaye Boyle made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

  1. On 13 April 2023 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Boyle via their nominated telephone number to discuss their application. Ms Boyle did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting a return call to the Commission.

  1. Later that day the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Boyle’s nominated email address advising that, based on the information contained in the application, the S.A. Health RMC Local Health Network may not be a national system employer and to urgently seek further advice on this issue, as the Commission may not have jurisdiction to deal with their application. The correspondence also required Ms Boyle to advise the Commission within 14 days whether they wished to proceed with their application. The correspondence warned that the application may be dismissed if no response was received. An SMS notification was also sent to Ms Boyle’s nominated telephone number advising there was a problem with their application and requesting that they contact the Commission.

  1. As the required information was not received, on 28 April 2023 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Boyle on her nominated telephone number. Ms Boyle did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting a return call to the Commission.

  1. To date, Ms Boyle has not contacted the Commission or provided any further information.

  1. Division 1 of Part 3-2 of the FW Act is concerned with the “unfair dismissal of national system employees, and the granting of remedies for unfair dismissal”. Further, s.380 of the FW Act provides that, under this Part, an “employee means a national system employee, and employer means a national system employer”. Ms Boyle and S.A. Health RMC Local Health Network do not respectively fall within the scope of this definition.

  1. In considering the provisions of the FW, I am satisfied that the Commission has no jurisdiction to determine Ms Boyle’s application for unfair dismissal as their employment was not with a national system employer.

  1. Section 587(1) of the FW Act provides as follows:

587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) the application has no reasonable prospect of success.

  1. In this circumstance, I have determined that the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act. The application is therefore dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR761729>

Details
AGLC
Judith Kaye Boyle v S.A. Health RMC Local Health Network [2023] FWC 1092
Case
[2023] FWC 1092
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Judith Kaye Boyle lodged an application for unfair dismissal against her former employer, S.A. Health RMC Local Health Network, before the Fair Work Commission. The Commission attempted to contact Ms Boyle multiple times to discuss the application and seek further information regarding their jurisdiction. Ms Boyle did not respond to the Commission’s attempts to contact her, and the Commission ultimately determined that it did not have jurisdiction over the matter because Ms Boyle was not employed by a national system employer. The Commission dismissed the application under s.587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The key issue before the Commission was whether it had jurisdiction to hear Ms Boyle's unfair dismissal application. The Commission considered that Ms Boyle and her employer did not fall within the scope of the Fair Work Act 2009, as they were not national system employees and employers. The Commission also noted that Ms Boyle did not respond to the Commission's attempts to contact her and provide further information regarding their jurisdiction. The Commission concluded that the application was not made in accordance with the Fair Work Act and dismissed the application under s.587(1)(c).

The Commission found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Ms Boyle's unfair dismissal application because her employment was not with a national system employer. The Commission noted that Ms Boyle did not respond to their attempts to contact her and provide further information regarding their jurisdiction. The Commission determined that the application was not made in accordance with the Fair Work Act and dismissed the application under s.587(1)(c). The application is dismissed.

No further orders.

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.