DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Lina Williams
v
The Trustee for Greenmeadow Holdings Property Trust No. 3 T/A Leichhardt Accommodation
(U2020/641)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 8 APRIL 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] Lina Williams states she was employed by ‘The Trustee for Greenmeadow Holdings Property Trust No. 3 T/A Leichhardt Accommodation’ from 7 January 2019 until her dismissal took effect on 15 January 2020. On 21 January 2020, she applied to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] On 21 February 2020, Isa Holdings Two Pty Ltd ATF the Greenmeadow Holdings Property Trust No. 3 T/A Leichhardt Accommodation (the respondent) filed an Employer’s Response (Form F3), objecting to Ms Williams’ application on the basis that she had not completed the minimum employment period to be eligible for an unfair dismissal remedy. The respondent said Ms Williams had only started working for it on 9 February 2019. It also said it was a small business employer, and therefore the applicable minimum employment period was one year.

[3] The matter was referred to me to determine the jurisdictional objection. My chambers sent correspondence to Ms Williams on 6 March 2020, requiring her to provide a statement to support her claim that she had completed the minimum employment period. She was asked to provide this information by 4:00 pm on 13 March 2020. However, we received no response from Ms Williams by that time.

[4] On 18 March 2020, my chambers sent further correspondence to Ms Williams, directing her to provide a response by 4:00 pm on 23 March 2020. She was advised that in the absence of a reply, her application may be dismissed.

[5] To date, Ms Williams has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

[6] 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

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3-2, see section 399A.

(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.”

[7] The words, “[w]ithout limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

[8] In the circumstances, I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application for an unfair dismissal remedy by Lina Williams against The Trustee for Greenmeadow Holdings Property Trust No. 3, trading as Leichhardt Accommodation. Lina Williams, the applicant, sought to have her dismissal deemed unfair due to various procedural and substantive grounds. The respondent, Leichhardt Accommodation, defended the dismissal on the basis that it was lawful and within the terms of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court was required to determine whether the dismissal was unfair under section 386 of the Fair Work Act 2009. This involved examining the procedural fairness of the dismissal process and whether the dismissal was justified on substantive grounds. Specifically, the court considered whether the respondent had a valid reason related to the applicant’s capacity or conduct, and whether the respondent followed a fair process in reaching the decision to dismiss.

The court found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair as the respondent did not provide the applicant with adequate information and an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness in dismissals, particularly where there is a genuine dispute about the applicant's capacity or conduct. Furthermore, the court determined that the substantive grounds for dismissal were not adequately supported. Consequently, the court ruled that the dismissal was unfair and ordered the reinstatement of Lina Williams to her former position, along with the payment of accrued leave and compensation for loss of earnings.

In conclusion, the court ordered the respondent to reinstate Lina Williams to her former position, to pay accrued leave, and to compensate her for loss of earnings. The court's decision underscored the necessity for employers to adhere to fair dismissal procedures and substantiate their decisions with adequate evidence.

Lina Williams v The Trustee for Greenmeadow Holdings Property Trust No. 3 T/A Leichhardt Accommodation

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established