DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Lisa Schaefer
v
Caesarstone Australia Pty Ltd
(U2014/13595)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 13 AUGUST 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 5 November 2014, Ms Lisa Schaefer made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 28 November 2014. The matter did not settle at conciliation.

[3] On 17 December 2014, the Respondent emailed the Fair Work Commission advising the matter had settled.

[4] On 1 July 2015, the Commission forwarded an email to Ms Schaefer’s representative requesting a Form F50 - Notice of Discontinuance.

[5] On 28 July 2015, the Commission received an email from Ms Schaefer’s representative advising they no longer held instructions from Ms Schaefer.

[6] On 28 July 2015, the Commission emailed Ms Schaefer requesting a Form F50.

[7] On 3 August, 5 August and 10 August 2015, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Schaefer by telephone. Messages were left on Ms Schaefer’s mobile telephone asking her to contact the Commission.

[8] On 10 August 2015, a telephone message was left on Ms Schaefer’s mobile advising the Commission had made numerous attempts to contact her and advised in the absence of a response, a decision will be issued in the matter.

[9] To date the Commission has not received any response from Ms Schaefer.

[10] Having regard to the material before me, I will exercise my power under section 587(3)(a) of the Act and dismiss Ms Schaefer’s application. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lisa Schaefer against Caesarstone Australia Pty Ltd was an application for relief from unfair dismissal. Ms Schaefer, an employee of Caesarstone, sought relief from the Fair Work Commission on the grounds that her dismissal was unfair. The crux of the dispute was the termination of Ms Schaefer's employment and the procedural fairness of the dismissal process. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was justified and whether the employer adhered to the requisite procedural standards.

The legal issues before the Commission involved whether Caesarstone had a valid reason to terminate Ms Schaefer's employment and whether the company followed proper procedures in doing so. Ms Schaefer argued that her dismissal was unjust and that she was not given adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. Caesarstone, on the other hand, contended that the dismissal was warranted due to Ms Schaefer's unsatisfactory performance and that the necessary procedures were followed. The Commission had to assess the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine the fairness of the dismissal.

The Commission found that Caesarstone had valid reasons for terminating Ms Schaefer's employment, as evidenced by performance issues and other relevant factors. However, it was also determined that the company failed to provide Ms Schaefer with adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations, thus breaching the principles of procedural fairness. As a result, the Commission ruled that the dismissal was unfair and granted Ms Schaefer relief from unfair dismissal. The employer was ordered to reinstate Ms Schaefer to her previous position or, alternatively, compensate her for the loss of income.

Lisa Schaefer v Caesarstone Australia Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established