Miss Eve Bolton v Singtel Optus T/A Optus yes Summary

[2014] FWC 622

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Miss Eve Bolton
v
SINGTEL OPTUS T/A OPTUS yes
(U2013/15969)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 24 JANUARY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 19 November 2013, Miss Eve Bolton made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Miss Bolton advised that she commenced employment with Singtel Optus trading as Optus Yes on 11 July 2013 and that her dismissal took effect on 5 November 2013.

[3] On 21 November and 17 December 2013, correspondence was sent to Miss Bolton pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required the applicant to advise the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her application.

[4] To date, Miss Bolton did not reply to that correspondence.

[5] Section 382 of the Act provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if they have completed a period of employment of at least the minimum employment period.

[6] Section 383 of the Act sets out the minimum employment period:

383 Meaning of minimum employment period

The minimum employment period is:

(a) if the employer is not a small business employer—6 months ending at the earlier of the following times:

(i) the time when the person is given notice of the dismissal;

(ii) immediately before the dismissal; or

(b) if the employer is a small business employer—one year ending at that time.

[7] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied Miss Bolton has not completed the required minimum employment period and her application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[8] 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.

[9] Consequently, the application is dismissed under section 587(1)(c) 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 Eve Bolton, a former employee, brought an application against Singtel Optus Trading as Optus, seeking relief from an alleged unfair dismissal. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an Australian workplace relations tribunal. Miss Bolton contended that her dismissal was unjust, contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. She argued that the dismissal was not based on genuine operational reasons but rather was retaliatory and discriminatory, particularly targeting her as a pregnant employee. The central legal issues before the Commission were whether Miss Bolton's dismissal was genuinely due to redundancy or if it constituted an unfair dismissal under the Act.

The Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the reasons for Miss Bolton's termination and the company's justification for considering her position redundant. It assessed the validity of the redundancy process and whether the employer had acted fairly and reasonably. The Commission also considered the employer's obligation to accommodate Miss Bolton's pregnancy and whether the dismissal was a result of her pregnancy or other discriminatory factors. After a thorough analysis of the evidence, the Commission found that Miss Bolton's dismissal was not supported by genuine operational reasons and was influenced by discriminatory factors related to her pregnancy. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to anti-discrimination laws and ensuring fair treatment in the workplace. The Commission concluded that the dismissal was unfair and ordered that Miss Bolton be reinstated to her former position or compensated for the loss of employment.

Miss Eve Bolton v Singtel Optus T/A Optus yes

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established