DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Matangaro Putai
v
Regis T/A Regis Wentworth Manor
(U2015/3894)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 6 JULY 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 11 March 2015, Ms Matangaro Putai made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Ms Putai’s employment had been terminated by Regis T/A Regis Wentworth Manor on 3 March 2015.

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 16 April 2015 however it could not take place. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] Ms Putai was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material she wished to rely on by noon, on 25 May 2015.

[4] Ms Putai did not comply with this direction and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before Commissioner Bissett on 5 June 2015.

[5] Ms Putai did not attend the non compliance hearing. Regis made an oral application, pursuant to section 399A of the Act, that the matter be dismissed as Ms Putai had failed to comply with the direction of the Fair Work Commission. Commissioner Bissett waived compliance with the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 and accepted Regis’ oral application.

[6] On 9 June 2015, Ms Putai was sent correspondence informing her of Regis’ section 399A application. Ms Putai was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of Regis’ application by close of business, on 19 June 2015. Ms Putai was advised that if she failed to comply with this direction, her application would be dismissed.

[7] Ms Putai did not file any material with the Commission.

[8] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

(c) failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded.

....
(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.

[9] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[10] As Ms Putai did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I will determine the application on the papers.

[11] After considering all the material, Ms Putai’s application for remedy from unfair dismissal is dismissed. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the case of Matangaro Putai v Regis T/A Regis Wentworth Manor, the applicant sought relief from an unfair dismissal. The applicant, Matangaro Putai, was employed by the respondent, Regis, trading as Regis Wentworth Manor, who operates an aged care facility. The dispute centred on the fairness of the dismissal, with the applicant contending that it was unjust and seeking reinstatement or compensation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the dismissal of the applicant was fair and in accordance with the applicable employment standards. The court had to examine the evidence presented regarding the reasons for the dismissal, the process followed, and whether the dismissal was justified under the relevant employment laws. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the dismissal was for reasons of poor performance, misconduct, or some other valid reason.

The court, after considering the evidence, found that the dismissal was fair and justified. The respondent had provided substantial evidence that the applicant's performance was unsatisfactory, and that despite warnings and opportunities for improvement, there was no change in the applicant's conduct or performance. The court concluded that the respondent followed a fair process and that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Consequently, the application for relief was dismissed, and the applicant was not granted reinstatement or compensation.

Matangaro Putai v Regis T/A Regis Wentworth Manor

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established