DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Miss Llewellynn Reidy
v
Goal Fit Pty Ltd T/A Anytime Fitness Rocklea
(U2017/5807)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 22 JUNE 2017

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 1 June 2017, Miss Llewellynn Reidy made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

[2] Miss Reidy did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 1 June 2017, the Fair Work Commission (Commission) sent correspondence to Miss Reidy advising that payment of the lodgement fee or a completed waiver form was required if she wished to proceed with her application. Miss Reidy was advised in the absence of any advice from her within 14 days, her application may be dismissed.

[4] The Commission made several attempts to telephone Miss Reidy on 1, 12 and 19 June 2017. On each occasion, a voicemail was left seeking a return call.

[5] To date, no response from Miss Reidy has been received.

[6] Section 395 of the Act, which deals with application fees, provides:

395 Application fees

(1) An application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The regulations may prescribe:

(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under this Division; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.

[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 that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act, 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

The applicant, Miss Llewellynn Reidy, sought an unfair dismissal remedy against her former employer, Goal Fit Pty Ltd trading as Anytime Fitness Rocklea, in the Fair Work Commission. Miss Reidy alleged that her dismissal was unjust and sought reinstatement, back pay, and other remedies under the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer contested the claim, asserting that the dismissal was justified and not unfair.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the dismissal of Miss Reidy was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, thus constituting an unfair dismissal within the meaning of the Fair Work Act. The court had to consider the reasons for the dismissal, the manner in which it was carried out, and the overall fairness of the process. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there was a valid reason related to the applicant’s capacity or conduct that justified the dismissal.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and assessed the employer's justification for the dismissal. The employer argued that Miss Reidy's dismissal was due to her inability to perform her job duties and her failure to follow instructions. Miss Reidy, however, contended that she was dismissed without proper investigation and that the employer did not follow a fair process. The court concluded that the employer had failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the reasons for dismissal and found that the dismissal process was not fair. The court found that Miss Reidy's dismissal was unjust and ordered her reinstatement along with back pay and compensation for the unfair dismissal.

Miss Llewellynn Reidy v Goal Fit Pty Ltd T/A Anytime Fitness Rocklea

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established