Katie Beezley v Alertvale Pty Ltd T/A Servicing Maintenance and Welding

[2013] FWC 7667

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Katie Beezley
v
Alertvale Pty Ltd T/A Servicing Maintenance and Welding
(U2013/12843)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 2 OCTOBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 23 August 2013, Mr Katie Beezley made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] On 3 September 2013, Ms Beezley verbally advised the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) that her matter settled and she no longer wanted to continue with her application. The Commission advised Ms Beezley of the formalities of discontinuing an application and asked Ms Beezley to complete a Form F50 - Notice of Discontinuance (Form F50).

[3] The Commission attempted to contact Ms Beezley by telephone and advised that her application remained open and that the Form F50 was required. To date the Commission has not received a completed Form F50.

[4] Having regard to the material before me, I am satisfied that given Ms Beezley’s advice, that her matter settled, she intended to discontinue her application but has not filed a Form F50.

[5] 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.

[6] I have decided to waive compliance with the Fair Work Rules 2010 (the Rules).

[7] 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 Beezley file and serve a Form F50 as I am satisfied that Ms Beezley has discontinued her application.

[8] The application is therefore, discontinued.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by Katie Beezley for relief from an unfair dismissal. The respondent, Alertvale Pty Ltd trading as Servicing Maintenance and Welding, was the employer in question. The dispute centred around the termination of Beezley's employment and her claim that it was unjust and unfair. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, a tribunal with jurisdiction over employment-related disputes in Australia.

The central legal issues addressed by the court were whether the termination of Beezley's employment was indeed unfair and, if so, what remedy should be granted. Beezley argued that her dismissal was unjust because it was based on her refusal to perform work outside her agreed duties, and she had been pressured to sign a document that would have altered her employment conditions. The respondent contended that the dismissal was fair because Beezley had breached her contract by refusing to comply with reasonable directions and had acted in a manner that undermined the trust and confidence required in the employer-employee relationship.

The Fair Work Commission considered the evidence presented by both parties and the principles governing unfair dismissal. The court found that Beezley's refusal to perform work outside her agreed duties was reasonable, and her dismissal was not justified under the circumstances. The court noted that the employer had not properly addressed the concerns raised by Beezley and had failed to provide a fair opportunity for her to remedy the situation. Consequently, the dismissal was deemed unfair, and the court ordered reinstatement and compensation for the period of lost employment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established