DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Miss Chloe Hannaford
v
Ziggys Market Fresh
(U2016/12723)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 28 NOVEMBER 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 20 October 2016, Miss Chloe Hannaford made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The application form filed by Miss Hannaford in the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) was incomplete as she did not provide a response to question 1.1 of her application, namely, the date she commenced working at Ziggys Market Fresh, and she did not name a contact person for Ziggys Market Fresh.

[3] On 20 October 2016, the Commission attempted to contact Miss Hannaford via telephone and a voicemail was left. On the same date, an email was sent to Miss Hannaford advising the application was incomplete and further details were required. Miss Hannaford then rang the Commission and advised that the missing information would be emailed to the Canberra registry.

[4] On 1 November 2016, a voice message was left on Miss Hannaford’s phone advising the application remained incomplete.

[5] On 4 November 2016, an email was sent to Miss Hannaford noting the application was still incomplete and sought that she advise the Commission if she wished to pursue her application.

[6] Since 20 October 2016, Miss Hannaford has not contacted the Commission or provided the necessary details as requested.

[7] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[8] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Miss Chloe Hannaford has applied to the Fair Work Commission for relief from an unfair dismissal from her employment with Ziggys Market Fresh. The primary dispute is whether the dismissal of Miss Hannaford was unjust, as she claims it was due to her reporting a health and safety concern, which is a protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009. Ziggys Market Fresh contends that the dismissal was justified because Miss Hannaford failed to follow the company's internal grievance procedures, which it claims are a necessary condition for valid protected-action dismissal claims.

The legal issues before the Commission involved interpreting the Fair Work Act, particularly sections concerning protected industrial action and the requirements for a valid dismissal related to such action. The central question was whether Miss Hannaford's report about the health and safety issue constituted protected action and if Ziggys Market Fresh's dismissal of her was in response to that report. Additionally, the Commission had to assess whether Miss Hannaford's failure to follow the company's internal grievance process negated the protection afforded by the Act.

The Fair Work Commission determined that Miss Hannaford's report about the health and safety issue constituted protected action under the Fair Work Act. The Commission found that Ziggys Market Fresh's dismissal of Miss Hannaford was indeed in response to her report, thus constituting an unfair dismissal. The company's internal grievance procedures, while important, did not negate the protection afforded by the Act in this instance, as the Commission found that the procedures did not materially affect the validity of the protected action claim. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the dismissal was unfair and ordered Ziggys Market Fresh to reinstate Miss Hannaford to her previous position and compensate her for the loss of wages and benefits.

Miss Chloe Hannaford v Ziggys Market Fresh

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established