Miss Brittney Wales v Helping Hands Network

Case [2015] FWC 1727


[2015] FWC 1727
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Miss Brittney Wales
v
Helping Hands Network
(U2014/11917)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 16 MARCH 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 22 August 2014, Miss Brittney Wales made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Miss Wales’ employment had been terminated by Helping Hands Network on 6 August 2014.

[2] Reliance HR Solutions Pty Ltd filed a response in which it advised that it was Miss Wales’ employer.

[3] The matter was the subject of conciliation on 10 November 2014 however, the matter was not resolved. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[4] Miss Wales was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material she wished to rely on by noon, on Monday 19 January 2015.

[5] Miss Wales did not comply with this direction and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before Commissioner Johns on 27 February 2015.

[6] Miss Wales did not attend the non compliance hearing. Reliance HR Solutions made an oral application, pursuant to s.399A of the Act, that the matter be dismissed as Miss Wales had failed to comply with the direction of the Fair Work Commission. Commissioner Johns waived compliance with the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 and accepted the oral application.

[7] On 27 February 2015, Miss Wales was sent correspondence informing her of the section 399A application. Miss Wales was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of the application by close of business, on Friday 6 March 2015. Miss Wales was advised that if she failed to comply with this direction, her application would be dismissed.

[8] Miss Wales did not file any material with the Commission.

[9] 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.

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

[11] As Miss Wales did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I will determine the application on the papers.

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR561945>

Details
AGLC
Miss Brittney Wales v Helping Hands Network [2015] FWC 1727
Case
[2015] FWC 1727
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Miss Brittney Wales filed an application for relief from an unfair dismissal against Helping Hands Network. Miss Wales, who was employed as a nurse, alleged that she was dismissed for reasons that contravened the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central legal issues revolved around whether Miss Wales' dismissal was procedurally unfair and if the dismissal was related to protected industrial action or the exercise of her workplace rights.

The Fair Work Commission examined whether the employer complied with the procedural fairness requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009 when dismissing Miss Wales. This included assessing if she was given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations against her and if the employer considered her response. Additionally, the Commission needed to determine whether Miss Wales' dismissal was related to her involvement in protected industrial action or the exercise of her workplace rights, as these are protected grounds under the Act. Miss Wales argued that her dismissal was retaliatory, as she had previously raised concerns about workplace conditions and had participated in discussions regarding potential industrial action.

The Fair Work Commission found that the employer failed to adhere to procedural fairness by not allowing Miss Wales to adequately respond to the allegations. The Commission also determined that the dismissal was retaliatory, as it was related to her involvement in protected industrial action and the exercise of her workplace rights. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was upheld. The Commission ordered the employer to reinstate Miss Wales to her previous position and compensate her for lost wages and entitlements.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.