McKinnon v Eventide Homes (Stawell) Inc. - [2013] FWC 5273

[2013] FWC 5273 Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2013/5823) was lodged against this decision - refer to Full Bench decision dated 16 October 2013 for result of appeal.

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jeanette McKinnon
v
Eventide Homes (Stawell) Inc.
(U2013/6757)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 8 AUGUST 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 - application to dismiss - agreement reached in conciliation - complete answer to claim - s. 587(1)(c) no reasonable prospect of success - application for relief from unfair dismissal dismissed.

[1] Jeanette McKinnon (the Applicant) has made an application for relief from unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). She says she was dismissed from her employment with Eventide Homes (Stawell) Inc (Eventide or the Respondent) on 6 February 2013. A conciliation conference with respect to her application was held by telephone on 14 March 2013.

[2] On 17 July 2013 I made a decision [[2013] FWC 4751] granting the Respondent permission to be represented by a lawyer at the hearing.

[3] At the hearing on 19 July 2013 I determined that the Respondent listed on the application made by the Applicant be amended to Eventide Homes (Stawell) Inc. This is the correct name of the Respondent. The Applicant and the Respondent both agreed to the change.

[4] The Respondent has raised an objection to the unfair dismissal matter being heard. It says that the application is frivolous or vexatious and should be dismissed in accordance with s.587(1)(b) of the Act. It says the Applicant entered into an agreement with the Respondent in settlement of her unfair dismissal application (and other matters).

[5] This decision deals only with those specific matters necessary to dispose of the Respondent’s application:

(i) Was an agreement reached between the Applicant and the Respondent that wholly settled the unfair dismissal application.

(ii) If such an agreement was reached should the application for unfair dismissal be dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous or vexatious or has no reasonable prospect of success.

[6] This decision does not deal with whether the Applicant’s dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

The earlier matters

[7] During these proceedings matters in dispute between the Applicant and Respondent that arose in 2009 and 2010 were raised. These matters are variously referred to as the 2009 matter, the 2009/10 matter or the 2010 matter. For ease I have referred to this as the ‘2010 matter’. Some or all of these matters were subject to a general protections application in accordance with s.372 of the Act (the general protections application). That application was subject to conciliation proceedings in the Commission in 2010 in accordance with the Act. Those proceedings apparently resulted in some agreement being reached between the parties which required the payment of an amount of $7013.07. The Applicant never signed the settlement agreement arising from the conciliation but claims the Respondent still owes her…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read McKinnon v Eventide Homes (Stawell) Inc. and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] FWC 5273
Decision Date: 8 AUGUST 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McKinnon lodged an application for relief from unfair dismissal against Eventide Homes (Stawell) Inc. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred around the dismissal of McKinnon by Eventide Homes, with McKinnon claiming the dismissal was unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009. The legal issues the court had to address included whether McKinnon's dismissal was indeed unfair, and whether there were any legitimate grounds for dismissal according to the provisions of the Fair Work Act.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the circumstances surrounding the dismissal and whether it complied with the procedural and substantive fairness requirements stipulated in the Act. In reaching its decision, the court considered whether McKinnon's dismissal was justified under the terms of the award, agreement, or contract. The court also assessed whether there were reasonable steps taken by Eventide Homes to address the alleged misconduct or capability issues leading to the dismissal. Ultimately, the court found that an agreement had been reached in conciliation which provided a complete answer to McKinnon's claim, and thus there was no reasonable prospect of success for McKinnon's application.

Based on the court's findings, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed. The court ruled that the dismissal was not unfair and that McKinnon's claim did not meet the criteria for relief under the Fair Work Act. As a result, the court upheld the decision of Eventide Homes to dismiss McKinnon and dismissed the application for relief.

Orders