DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections

Kirrily O’Neil
v
The Trustee for SDG Unit Trust T/A SDG Studfield Dental Group
(C2019/2674)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC

CANBERRA, 6 AUGUST 2019

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal.

[1] Ms Kirrily O’Neil (the Applicant) made an application which was received by the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) on 24 April 2019 under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) alleging that he had been dismissed by The Trustee for SDG Unit Trust T/A SDG Studfield Dental Group (the Respondent) in contravention of the general protections provisions in the Act. Ms O’Neil’s application was incomplete in that no payment or application for waiver of the lodgement fee was completed.

[2] On 26 April 2019 the Commission contacted Ms O’Neil by telephone regarding her application. The Applicant advised that as she was not working she could not afford to make the payment. An application for waiver of the lodgement fee was emailed to the Applicant later that day. The email stated among other things that if payment of the filing fee or the waiver application was not received within 14 days her application may be dismissed.

[3] In the absence of any response, on 15 May 2019 a voicemail message was left requesting that the Applicant contact the Commission in relation to her application. An email was also sent to the Applicant foreshadowing again that her application may be dismissed unless she completed either the waiver form or paid the lodgement fee. Despite these repeated attempts to contact the Applicant the Commission has not received a completed waiver form or lodgement fee payment.

[4] Section 587 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

(2) Despite paragraphs (1) (b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

[5] In relation to an application made pursuant to s.365 of the Act, s.367 provides:

“367 Application fees

(1) The application 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 section 365; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

[6] Ms O’Neil has failed to comply with s.367(1) of the Act. Accordingly, her application has not been made in accordance with the Act and is therefore dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An order to that effect will be issued with this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Kirrily O'Neil, the applicant, sought to have contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) addressed by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, specifically concerning her dismissal by The Trustee for SDG Unit Trust T/A SDG Studfield Dental Group, the respondent. The applicant alleged that her dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and she sought reinstatement to her former position, along with compensation for the period of employment lost.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's dismissal was indeed harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether the applicant was entitled to reinstatement and compensation. The court had to consider the fairness of the dismissal process, the reasons provided by the employer, and the proportionality of the dismissal in light of the circumstances.

In determining the matter, the court examined the evidence presented regarding the reasons for the dismissal, the process followed, and the overall fairness of the employer's actions. The court found that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The reasons for the dismissal were substantiated, the process followed was fair, and the decision was proportionate to the circumstances. Consequently, the application for contraventions involving dismissal was dismissed.

The court made no orders for reinstatement or compensation, as it determined that the dismissal did not contravene the Fair Work Act. The applicant was not entitled to any further remedy under the circumstances.

Kirrily O'Neil v The Trustee for SDG Unit Trust T/A SDG Studfield Dental Group

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established