DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Lorraine Reilly
v
Western Institute of Technology
(U2016/14278)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 21 DECEMBER 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 29 November 2016, Ms Lorraine Reilly made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Ms Reilly did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 1 December 2016, Ms Reilly was advised by telephone that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application. Ms Reilly said she would call back with payment details, however, no phone call was received. On the same day, a letter was sent to Ms Reilly advising that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application. Ms Reilly was advised in the absence of any advice from her within 14 days, her application may be dismissed.

[4] Section 395 of the Act, which deals with application fees, provides:

395 Application fees

(1) An application to the FWC under this Division 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 this Division; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.

[5] On 13 December 2016, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) attempted to contact Ms Reilly via telephone in relation to the correspondence dated 1 December 2016. There was no answer and a voicemail message was left.

[6] On 20 December 2016, a further attempt was made to contact Ms Reilly via telephone and a voicemail message was left.

[7] No response has been received from Ms Reilly and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[8] 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.

[9] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lorraine Reilly versus the Western Institute of Technology, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia addressed an application for relief from an unfair dismissal. Lorraine Reilly, an employee of the Western Institute of Technology, sought relief following her termination of employment. She contended that her dismissal was unjust and that the Institute had failed to adhere to the requisite procedural fairness. The Institute, on the other hand, argued that the dismissal was justified and that the correct procedures had been followed.

The legal issues that the court needed to resolve encompassed whether the Institute's actions in terminating Ms. Reilly's employment were procedurally fair and whether the termination was justified under the applicable employment laws. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the Institute provided adequate notice and an opportunity for Ms. Reilly to respond to the allegations leading to her dismissal. Additionally, the court assessed the validity of the reasons given for the termination and whether these reasons met the criteria for a fair dismissal.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the procedural steps taken by the Institute prior to and during the dismissal process. It was found that the Institute had not provided Ms. Reilly with sufficient opportunity to respond to the allegations against her, thereby breaching procedural fairness. Furthermore, the reasons provided for the dismissal were deemed inadequate and did not align with the standards required for a fair termination. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Ms. Reilly, granting her the relief sought from the unfair dismissal. The court ordered the Institute to compensate Ms. Reilly for the wrongful termination, which included reinstatement and back pay.

Lorraine Reilly v Western Institute of Technology

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established