DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections

Madeline Stenner-Richardson
v
Hairmoves
(C2015/2451)

COMMISSIONER GREGORY

MELBOURNE, 24 JULY 2015

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal.

[1] On 9 April 2015 Ms Madeline Stenner-Richardson made an application pursuant to s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) alleging she was dismissed by Hairmoves in contravention of Part 3-1 of the Act.

[2] The matter was listed for conference on 25 June 2015. The Applicant failed to attend the conference. The Commission attempted to contact her by telephone however the telephone number provided on the Application did not belong to Ms Stenner-Richardson.

[3] My chambers wrote to Ms Stenner-Richardson on 25 June 2015 stating:

“This matter was listed for conference before Commissioner Gregory today at 2:00pm and a notice was sent to you to this effect on 12 June 2015. This notice is attached for your information.

I have tried to contact you on the telephone number you provided on your application but have been advised that the number is incorrect. The number you provided was (number removed).

Can you please contact me as soon as possible to confirm if you intend to proceed with your s.365 application against Hairmoves.”

[4] After receiving no response, my chambers again wrote to Ms Stenner-Richardson on 3 July 2015. This correspondence was sent both by email and by post, it stated:

“I refer to the below email and request a response as soon as possible. I am also posting a copy of this email to you to ensure you receive it.”

[5] No response was received to this further correspondence.

[6] Section 587 of the Act states:

“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] Having received no response from Ms Stenner-Richardson after all reasonable attempts to contact her have been made, I am satisfied that she has not properly prosecuted her application.

[8] This application is dismissed under s.587(3)(a) of the Act. An order giving effect to this Decision will be issued accordingly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Madeline Stenner-Richardson v Hairmoves, the Federal Circuit and Family Court was presented with a dispute concerning an application to address contraventions involving dismissal. The applicant, Madeline Stenner-Richardson, sought to have certain contraventions rectified that allegedly occurred during her dismissal from Hairmoves. The primary focus of the application was on the fairness and procedural correctness of the dismissal process.

The court was tasked with determining whether the dismissal complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. This involved examining whether Hairmoves had followed the necessary procedural steps and whether the dismissal was genuinely for a valid reason. The court also needed to consider if there were any mitigating factors or procedural errors that might warrant an order for the contraventions to be dealt with. The legal issues centred on the interpretation of the dismissal provisions and whether the applicant's rights were adequately protected under the Act.

The court, in its reasoning, thoroughly reviewed the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that Hairmoves had indeed failed to follow some procedural steps as required by the Fair Work Act. The court was particularly critical of the manner in which the dismissal was handled, finding that there were significant procedural deficiencies. Consequently, the court concluded that the dismissal was not procedurally fair and ordered that the contraventions be dealt with. This decision was grounded in the principle that employees must be afforded their due process rights, and any shortfall in this regard warrants corrective action.

The final orders of the court mandated that Hairmoves take specific steps to remedy the procedural errors identified during the dismissal process. This included the reinstatement of certain procedural steps and the provision of adequate notice to the applicant. The court's decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to the procedural requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act to ensure fair treatment of employees during dismissal proceedings.

Madeline Stenner-Richardson v Hairmoves

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established