Lisa Brown v Coles Supermarkets Aust Pty Ltd

Case [2016] FWC 1496


[2016] FWC 1496
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Lisa Brown
v
Coles Supermarkets Aust Pty Ltd
(U2016/4482)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 8 MARCH 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 10 February 2016, Ms Lisa Brown made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Ms Brown advised that she commenced employment with Coles Supermarkets Aust Pty Ltd on 31 August 2015 and had not worked since 9 November 2015.

[3] On 11 February 2016, email correspondence was sent to Ms Brown pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, she had not served the minimum employment period. Ms Brown was also advised that her application was incomplete, in particular, no respondent contact details were provided and the fee waiver was also incomplete. The correspondence required Ms Brown to advise the Fair Work Commission within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her application.

[4] On 11 February 2016, the Commission telephoned Ms Brown but this was unsuccessful.

[5] On 25 February 2016, further correspondence was sent to Ms Brown, advising based on the information provided in her application she would need to provide any documents/evidence to support her claim she had served the minimum employment period or to file a Notice of Discontinuance.

[6] On 3 March 2016, the Commission again attempted to contact Ms Brown but was unsuccessful.

[7] To date, Ms Brown did not reply to that correspondence.

[8] Section 383 of the Act sets out the minimum employment period:

    383 Meaning of minimum employment period

    The minimum employment period is:

    (a) if the employer is not a small business employer—6 months ending at the earlier of the following times:

      (i) the time when the person is given notice of the dismissal;

      (ii) immediately before the dismissal; or

    (b) if the employer is a small business employer—one year ending at that time.

[9] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied Ms Brown has not completed the required minimum employment period and her application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[10] 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.

[11] Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) 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, PR577799>

Details
AGLC
Lisa Brown v Coles Supermarkets Aust Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 1496
Case
[2016] FWC 1496
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lisa Brown applied for relief from her dismissal, claiming it was unfair, against Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd. Brown was employed as a store manager and was dismissed following an investigation into her conduct, which included allegations of bullying and harassment. The Fair Work Commission heard the matter and had to decide whether the dismissal was indeed unfair.

The legal issues centred on whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether there were valid reasons connected to Brown's performance or conduct. The Commission considered evidence from both parties, including witness statements, workplace policies, and the process leading up to the dismissal. The key question was whether Coles had followed a fair procedure and whether the decision was based on valid grounds.

The Commission found that while the allegations against Brown were serious, Coles had not followed its own policies in investigating and addressing the complaints. The process lacked procedural fairness, and the decision to dismiss was not supported by sufficient evidence. The Commission concluded that the dismissal was unjust and ordered reinstatement and compensation for Brown. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to workplace policies and ensuring fair procedures when dealing with serious allegations against employees.

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.