Juliet Greenwell v Finch Property Management Summary

[2022] FWC 1156

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Juliet Greenwell
v

Finch Property Management

(U2022/4681)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 13 MAY 2022

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – unpaid application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

On 21 April 2022 Mrs Juliet Greenwell 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).

The application was incomplete in that Mrs Greenwell did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

On 22 April 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mrs Greenwell on her nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee, however the Mrs Greenwell did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting that Mrs Greenwell contact the Commission to make payment of the filing fee.

Later that day the Commission emailed correspondence to Mrs Greenwell’s nominated email address advising that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received within 14 days, the application may be dismissed.

On 4 May 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mrs Greenwell by telephone. Mrs Greenwell advised that she was unsure if she wanted to continue with her application and that she would telephone the Commission back by the end of the week.

A final attempt to contact Mrs Greenwell was made by the Commission on 10 May 2022 to obtain payment of the required fee or a completed waiver form. Mrs Greenwell advised that she was unable to speak with the Commission at that time. The Commission requested that Mrs Greenwell contact the Commission urgently to make payment of the filing fee.

To date there has been no response from Mrs Greenwell, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.

Section 395 of the FW Act, which deals with application fees, provides as follows:

395 Application fees

(1) An application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The regulations may prescribe:

(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under this Division; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.

Section 587(1) of the FW Act provides:

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.

Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the FW Act, the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An order[1] to this effect will be issued with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

[1] PR741584.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Juliet Greenwell, an employee, sought relief from unfair dismissal against Finch Property Management in the Fair Work Commission. Ms Greenwell alleged that she was unfairly dismissed without valid reason, particularly due to her complaints about unpaid wages. Finch Property Management argued that the dismissal was justified, as it was conducted under section 587 at the Commission's initiative. The case hinged on whether the dismissal was procedurally fair and whether the employer had a valid reason to terminate Ms Greenwell's employment.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the dismissal process was fair and whether the employer had a valid reason to terminate the employee. The court needed to determine if Finch Property Management followed the correct procedures in dismissing Ms Greenwell and whether her dismissal was justified. Additionally, the court considered whether Ms Greenwell's complaints about unpaid wages constituted a valid reason for her dismissal under the relevant employment laws.

In examining the case, the court found that Finch Property Management did not follow the correct procedures in dismissing Ms Greenwell. The court held that the employer failed to provide adequate notice and an opportunity for Ms Greenwell to respond to the allegations against her. Furthermore, the court concluded that the employer did not have a valid reason to terminate Ms Greenwell's employment based on her complaints about unpaid wages. The court found that the employer's actions were retaliatory and thus, the dismissal was unfair.

Consequently, the court granted relief to Ms Greenwell, ruling that her dismissal was unfair. The court ordered Finch Property Management to reinstate Ms Greenwell to her former position and provide her with compensation for the loss of wages and other entitlements. The decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the need for employers to provide valid reasons for dismissal, especially in cases where the employee has raised legitimate grievances.

Juliet Greenwell v Finch Property Management

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established