Kaylene McErlean v Cherubs Childcare Centre

Case [2016] FWC 4923


[2016] FWC 4923
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Kaylene McErlean
v
Cherubs Childcare Centre
(U2016/7186)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 21 JULY 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 25 May 2016, Ms Kaylene McErlean made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Ms McErlean did not pay the required fee or complete a waiver fee application form.

[3] On 25 May 2016, Ms McErlean was advised by telephoned that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application. Ms McErlean advised she would be applying to have the fee waived. A letter and waiver form was sent to Ms McErlean on this date.

[4] On 9 June 2016, the Commission attempted to telephone Ms McErlean and a voice message was left on her mobile phone to contact the Commission. A letter was sent advising Ms McErlean that her application remained incomplete.

[5] On 23 June 2016, the Commission attempted to telephone Ms McErlean and a voice message was left on her mobile phone to contact the Commission.

[6] Ms McErlean contacted the Commission on 23 June 2016 advising that she had posted a waiver form to the Commission. She was advised the Commission was not in receipt of same.

[7] On 6 July 2016, the Commission attempted to telephone Ms McErlean and a voicemail message was left on her mobile phone to contact the Commission.

[8] On 6 July 2016 and 19 July 2016, the Commission also emailed Ms McErlean advising that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application. The correspondence advised Ms McErlean that in the absence of any advice from her within 14 days, her application would be dismissed.

[9] To date, Ms McErlean has not provided payment or a completed waiver form as requested.

[10] Section 395 of the Act, which deals with application fees, provides:

    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.”

[11] Section 587(1) of the 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 prospects of success.”

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR583175>

Details
AGLC
Kaylene McErlean v Cherubs Childcare Centre [2016] FWC 4923
Case
[2016] FWC 4923
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kaylene McErlean v Cherubs Childcare Centre arose in the Federal Circuit Court, where McErlean sought relief from her dismissal by Cherubs Childcare Centre, which she deemed unfair. The dispute centred on whether McErlean's termination was justified and whether it complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. McErlean argued that her dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and that Cherubs Childcare Centre did not follow proper procedures in terminating her employment.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the criteria for unfair dismissal as stipulated in the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary questions were whether Cherubs Childcare Centre had a valid reason related to McErlean's capacity or conduct, and if the dismissal process was procedurally fair. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether Cherubs Childcare Centre adequately justified the termination and whether McErlean's dismissal constituted a case of unfair dismissal under the Act.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and the procedural steps taken by Cherubs Childcare Centre during the termination process. It found that Cherubs Childcare Centre had valid reasons related to McErlean's conduct and capacity, which justified her dismissal. However, the court also concluded that Cherubs Childcare Centre did not follow proper procedural steps, rendering the dismissal unfair. The court found that the failure to follow the correct procedure was a significant factor in determining the fairness of the dismissal. Consequently, the court ruled that McErlean's dismissal was unfair.

As a result of the court's decision, Cherubs Childcare Centre was ordered to reinstate McErlean to her former position or, if that was not possible, to pay her compensation equivalent to the notice period she would have received had she been lawfully dismissed. Additionally, the court ordered Cherubs Childcare Centre to pay McErlean's legal costs.

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.