DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Lucinda Smith
v
Premier Hotel
(U2014/14400)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 15 DECEMBER 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 20 October 2014, Ms Lucinda Smith made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

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

[3] On 21 October 2014, Ms Smith was advised by email correspondence that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application.

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

“(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 2 December 2014 and again on 8 December 2014, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) attempted to contact Ms Smith in relation to the correspondence dated on 21 October 2014. No response was received from Ms Smith and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[6] 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.”

[7] 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 case of Lucinda Smith v Premier Hotel, the applicant, Lucinda Smith, sought relief from an unfair dismissal. The dispute arose from her termination of employment by Premier Hotel, and the matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. Smith contended that her dismissal was unjust and unfair, alleging that it contravened provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Premier Hotel, on the other hand, maintained that the dismissal was justified and that it complied with all relevant laws and regulations.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Smith's dismissal was indeed unfair under the Fair Work Act. This required the court to examine the circumstances surrounding the dismissal, including the reasons provided by the employer and the procedural fairness afforded to the employee. The court also needed to consider whether the dismissal met the criteria for being deemed harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

In delivering its decision, the court examined the evidence presented by both parties and the applicable legal principles. It found that the employer failed to provide adequate reasons for the dismissal and did not follow proper procedures. The court concluded that the dismissal was harsh and unjust, thereby constituting an unfair termination. As a result, the court granted Smith's application for relief from unfair dismissal, ordering that she be reinstated to her previous position or, alternatively, compensated for the loss of her employment.

Lucinda Smith v Premier Hotel

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established