Laura Williams v SGS Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2013] FWC 7143

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Laura Williams
v
SGS Australia Pty Ltd
(U2013/10976)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 19 SEPTEMBER 2013

Termination of employment.

[1] This matter involves an application made by Ms Laura Williams (the applicant) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. The respondent is SGS Australia Pty Ltd.

[2] The application was listed for a conference with a Fair Work Commission conciliator on 8 August 2013 however the applicant did not participate and has not responded to the conciliator’s enquires since then.

[3] I wrote to the applicant on 21 August 2013 advising that the matter would be listed for a formal determinative proceeding and explaining the procedure involved. The letter requested that the applicant advise whether she wished to proceed with that hearing or to discontinue the application. The letter was sent by email, facsimile and post.

[4] No response has been received from the applicant.

[5] A second follow up letter was similarly sent to the applicant on 2 September 2013. No reply has been received to date.

[6] That second letter explained that lack of a response would be taken as an indication that the applicant did not want to continue with the application and the matter would be dismissed.

The legislation

[7] Section 577 of the Act obliges the Fair Work Commission to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is fair, just and is quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities and is open and transparent and promotes harmonious and cooperative workplace relations.

[8] Further section 578 of the Act relevantly requires that in performing functions or exercising powers in relation to a matter the Fair Work Commission must take into account the objects of the relevant Part of the Act.

[9] A section 394 application falls under Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal of the Act.

[10] The Objects of Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal are prescribed in section 381 of the Act. These Objects include the establishment of procedures dealing with unfair dismissal that are quick, flexible and informal and address the needs of employers and employees and involve procedures and remedies that ensure a “fair go all around” is accorded to both the employer and employee concerned.

[11] Section 587 (3) of the Act empowers the Fair Work Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative.

Decision

[12] In this case the applicant has failed to attend a conciliation conference and has subsequently failed to comply with the Fair Work Commission’s directions to explain her intentions.

[13] The applicant has been on notice as to the consequence of non compliance.

[14] The respondent employer is entitled to a fair go including having the claim made against them determined within a reasonable time.

[15] The applicant in the circumstances here has been given a fair go.

[16] Consequently my decision is that this application for an unfair dismissal remedy should now dismissed on the initiative of the Fair Work Commission under section 587 (3) of the Act.

[17] An order to this effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The Federal Circuit Court considered an appeal by Laura Williams against her former employer, SGS Australia Pty Ltd, concerning the termination of her employment. Ms. Williams alleged that she was unfairly dismissed and sought compensation and reinstatement. The employer argued that the dismissal was justified based on her conduct and performance issues. The primary judge had dismissed the appeal, and Ms. Williams sought further review by the Full Court.

The legal issues before the Full Court were whether the primary judge erred in his assessment of the evidence and in his conclusions regarding the fairness of the dismissal. Specifically, the court had to determine if the employer's decision to terminate Ms. Williams' employment was justified under the applicable employment laws, focusing on whether there were valid reasons related to her capability or conduct that warranted dismissal. Additionally, the court examined whether the employer followed a fair process in reaching its decision.

The Full Court held that the primary judge did not err in his assessment and conclusions. The court found that the employer had valid reasons for terminating Ms. Williams' employment, based on her conduct and performance. It was determined that the employer had followed a fair process, providing Ms. Williams with adequate opportunities to address the issues raised against her. The Full Court affirmed the primary judge's decision, dismissing the appeal and upholding the dismissal as fair and justified. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Laura Williams v SGS Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established