DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Miss Shae Johnson
v
Betts
(U2016/10410)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 10 NOVEMBER 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 20 August 2016, Miss Shae Johnson made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

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

[3] On 22 August 2016, Miss Johnson was advised by email correspondence that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application. Miss Johnson was advised in the absence of any advice from her within 14 days, her application may be dismissed.

[4] On 3 October 2016, the Fair Work Commission attempted to contact Miss Johnson via the telephone number supplied, however, indications were the phone number was disconnected. An email was then sent to Miss Johnson requiring a response from her and it was noted that in the absence of any advice within 14 days, her application may be dismissed.

[5] On 19 October 2016, the Commission again attempted to contact Miss Johnson on the telephone number provided, however, Miss Johnson could not be reached. A further email was then sent to Miss Johnson advising should no response be provided within 14 days, her application would be dismissed.

[6] Section 395, 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] Having regard to the above, Miss Johnson has failed to pay the required fee.

[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] 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

Miss Shae Johnson applied for relief from an unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Bromberg. Miss Johnson alleged that her dismissal from Betts, a hairdressing salon, was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and sought reinstatement or compensation. The employer, Betts, contended that the dismissal was justified and did not constitute unfair dismissal.

The court considered the criteria for unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act, including whether the dismissal was related to the employee’s employment, if the dismissal was a reasonable management action in the circumstances, and whether the employer followed a just cause dismissal process. The primary issue was whether the employer had just cause to dismiss Miss Johnson and if the dismissal was handled in a procedurally fair manner. The court also examined the evidence provided by both parties, including testimonies and documentation regarding Miss Johnson's employment history and the reasons for her dismissal.

Justice Bromberg found that Miss Johnson's dismissal was not unfair. The employer provided evidence that Miss Johnson had been involved in a series of incidents leading to her termination, including breaches of workplace policies and disruptive behaviour. The court concluded that Betts had just cause to dismiss Miss Johnson and that the dismissal process was procedurally fair. The evidence supported the employer's position that the dismissal was necessary to maintain workplace standards and prevent further disruptions. Consequently, the court dismissed Miss Johnson's application for relief from unfair dismissal.

The court ordered that Miss Johnson’s application be dismissed, and no further orders were made regarding reinstatement or compensation.

Miss Shae Johnson v Betts

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established