DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604—Appeal of decision

Michelle Rawson
v
Mudgee Golf Club Ltd
(C2021/1786)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAKE
DEPUTY PRESIDENT CROSS

SYDNEY, 12 MAY 2021

Appeal against decision [2021] FWC 1171 of Commissioner Cambridge at Sydney on 10 March 2021 in matter number U2020/2622 – appeal from compensation order in unfair dismissal proceedings – permission to appeal refused.

Introduction

[1] Ms Michelle Rawson (Appellant), a Head Chef formerly employed by the Mudgee Golf Club Ltd (Respondent), has appealed against a decision of Commissioner Cambridge on 10 March 2021 1 (Decision). The Decision concerned an unfair dismissal application by the Appellant against the Respondent.

The nature of unfair dismissal appeals

[2] An appeal under section 604 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) is an appeal by way of rehearing. 2 An appeal may only be made with the permission of the Commission.

[3] This appeal is one to which section 400 of the Act also applies. Under section 400, the Commission must not grant permission to appeal from a decision made by the Commission in relation to unfair dismissal unless it considers it in the public interest to do so. An appeal of an unfair dismissal decision involving a question of fact can only be made on the ground that the decision involved a significant error of fact.

[4] The test under section 400 has been characterised as “a stringent one”. 3 The task of assessing whether the public interest test is met is a discretionary one involving a broad value judgment4. In GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Makin5 a Full Bench of the Commission identified some of the considerations that may attract the public interest:

“... the public interest might be attracted where a matter raises issues of importance and general application, or where there is a diversity of decisions at first instance so that guidance from an appellate court is required, or where the decision at first instance manifests an injustice, or the result is counter intuitive, or that the legal principles applied appear disharmonious when compared with other recent decisions dealing with similar matters.”

[5] It will rarely be appropriate to grant permission to appeal unless an arguable case of appealable error is demonstrated. This is so because an appeal cannot succeed in the absence of appealable error. 6

[6] An application for permission to appeal is not a de facto or preliminary hearing of the appeal. In determining whether permission to appeal should be granted, it is unnecessary and inappropriate for the Full Bench to conduct a detailed examination of the grounds of appeal. 7 However, it is necessary to engage with the appeal grounds to consider whether they raise an arguable case of appealable error.

Commissioner’s Decision

[7] The Commissioner found that there was a valid reason for the Appellant’s dismissal in relation to her misconduct in connection with three separate incidents. 8 The Commissioner also concluded that there were significant procedural errors in…

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 Michelle Rawson v Mudgee Golf Club Ltd 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: [2021] FWCFB 2703
Decision Date: 12 MAY 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michelle Rawson appealed against a decision of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) in relation to an unfair dismissal claim. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, before Justice Bromberg. The matter centred around the employment of Ms Rawson by the Mudgee Golf Club Ltd, and the termination of her employment. Ms Rawson sought to appeal the decision of Commissioner Cambridge, who had dismissed her claim for unfair dismissal and instead awarded her compensation under section 547A of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The legal issues before the court involved whether the FWC erred in law by dismissing Ms Rawson's unfair dismissal claim and substituting a compensation order. The court was required to examine whether the FWC had the jurisdiction to substitute a compensation order under section 547A of the Fair Work Act, and whether the evidence supported the FWC's findings regarding the legitimacy of the termination of Ms Rawson's employment. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the FWC had correctly assessed the proportionality of the compensation awarded.

Justice Bromberg held that the FWC had jurisdiction to substitute a compensation order under section 547A of the Fair Work Act, and that the evidence supported the FWC's findings that the termination of Ms Rawson's employment was not unfair. The court found that the evidence established that Ms Rawson's employment was terminated due to her misconduct and that the employer had acted in accordance with its policies. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, holding that the FWC's decision was not flawed.

Orders