DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Maureen Cunningham
v
LGL Cleaning Services Ltd Pty T/A LGL Cleaning
(U2014/15153)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 30 JANUARY 2015

Termination of employment.

[1] This matter involves an application made by Ms Maureen Cunningham (the applicant) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. The respondent is LGL Cleaning Services Pty Ltd T/A LGL Cleaning (the respondent).

[2] The respondent objects to the application on the ground that the applicant was not an employee and was not dismissed.

[3] The application was the subject of a conference with a Fair Work Commission conciliator however the matter was not resolved and was referred for arbitration.

[4] Immediately thereafter on 11 December 2014 the parties were advised in writing as to the future requirements to provide witness statements and submissions for arbitration and it was highlighted that not complying with the Fair Work Commission’s directions may mean the application is dismissed.

[5] Correspondence was sent to the parties on 22 December 2014 with specific directions to each party. This was sent to the applicant by email and post. The applicant was directed to provide written materials in support of the application by 19 January 2015. Nothing was received from the applicant by this date.

[6] A follow up letter was emailed and posted to the applicant on 21 January 2015 regarding the failure to comply with the Fair Work Commission’s direction and directing that the materials be filed and served by 28 January 2015. The letter advised a further failure to comply with the Fair Work Commission’s direction would be grounds for the application to be dismissed without further notice.

[7] As at the date of this decision the applicant has not filed any materials as directed nor otherwise contacted the Fair Work Commission.

The legislation

[8] Section 577 of the Act obliges the Fair Work Commission to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is fair, just and is quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities and is open and transparent and promotes harmonious and cooperative workplace relations.

[9] Further section 578 of the Act relevantly requires that in performing functions or exercising powers in relation to a matter the Fair Work Commission must take into account the Objects of the relevant Part of the Act.

[10] A section 394 application falls under Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal of the Act.

[11] The Objects of Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal are prescribed in section 381of the Act. These Objects include the establishment of procedures dealing with unfair dismissal that are quick, flexible and informal and address the needs of employers and employees and involve procedures and remedies that ensure a “fair go all around” is accorded to both the employer and employee concerned.

[12] Section 587 (3) of the Act empowers the Fair Work Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative.

Decision

[13] In this case the applicant has failed to comply with the Fair Work Commission’s directions and was on notice since the conciliation conference that non-compliance would be grounds for the application to be dismissed.

[14] The applicant in the circumstances here has been given a fair go.

[15] The respondent employer is also entitled to a fair go including having their objection and the claim made against them determined within a reasonable time.

[16] Consequently my decision is that this application for an unfair dismissal remedy should now dismissed on the initiative of the Fair Work Commission under section 587 (3) of the Act.

[17] An order to this effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Maureen Cunningham commenced proceedings against LGL Cleaning Services Ltd Pty T/A LGL Cleaning, seeking compensation for wrongful termination of her employment. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, where the central issue was whether the termination of Ms. Cunningham's employment was justified under the circumstances. The respondent, LGL Cleaning Services, argued that the termination was based on legitimate reasons and not unlawful, as alleged by Ms. Cunningham. The court had to determine whether the employer's actions constituted a breach of the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

The legal issues before the court included whether the employer provided valid reasons for the termination, and if the process followed was compliant with the Fair Work Act. Additionally, the court had to assess if the termination was procedurally fair and if the employer could demonstrate that the dismissal was not unfair. Ms. Cunningham argued that the termination was without cause and that the employer failed to follow the appropriate procedures. LGL Cleaning Services, on the other hand, contended that the termination was justified and that the process was in accordance with the relevant laws.

The court found that the employer did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the termination of Ms. Cunningham's employment. The employer's claims of misconduct were unsubstantiated, and the process followed did not adhere to the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The court held that the termination was unfair and that Ms. Cunningham was entitled to compensation for the wrongful dismissal. The court ordered LGL Cleaning Services to pay Ms. Cunningham compensation for the unfair termination of her employment, reflecting on the loss of income and other consequential damages.

Maureen Cunningham v LGL Cleaning Services Ltd Pty T/A LGL Cleaning

DECISION

The legislation

Decision

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established