Mrs Gloria BowdenvOttrey Homes - Cobram and District Retirement Village Inc T/A Ottrey Lodge

Case [2012] FWA 9191


Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2012/6038) was lodged against this decision - refer to Full Bench decision dated 4 February 2013 [[2013] FWCFB 431] for result of appeal.

[2012] FWA 9191


FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

FURTHER DECISION IN REGARD

TO REMEDY

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mrs Gloria Bowden
v
Ottrey Homes - Cobram & District Retirement Village Inc T/A Ottrey Lodge
(U2011/1147)

COMMISSIONER CRIBB

MELBOURNE, 26 OCTOBER 2012

Application for unfair dismissal remedy - remedy.

[1] This decision concerns determination of the amount of compensation to be ordered by the Tribunal. It follows the decision 1 issued on 1 August 2012 in which the Tribunal found that Ms Bowden had been unfairly dismissed. In that decision2, the Tribunal was unable to finally determine the amount of compensation as there was insufficient material before the Tribunal at that time.

[2] Accordingly, the parties were requested 3 to reach a common view on Ms Bowden’s hourly rate of pay and the number of hours per fortnight she worked.

[3] By letter 4 of 15 August 2012, the Tribunal was advised by the respondent’s representative that the parties had agreed that:

  • Ms Bowden worked 25 hours a week;


  • Ms Bowden’s rate of pay, as at the date of her dismissal, was $19.43 per hour.


[4] Further, the applicant’s representative was requested to provide the Tribunal and the respondent with Ms Bowden’s updated earnings from her “other” job and from her business. 5

[5] This information was provided on 5 September 2012 6 for the period 27 November 2011 - 1 August 2012 and was:

  • business - $1703.99


  • ‘other job’ - $12,266.00


  • Total $13,969.99

[6] The information is relevant to the requirements of sections 392(2)(c), (e) and (f) and section 392(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act):

Likely remuneration (s.392(2)(c)):

  • 6 months (26 weeks) at 25 hours per week at an hourly rate of $19.43 per hour = $12,629.50


Amount earned (s.392(2)(e) and (f):

  • ‘other’ job - $3,152.81 7


    • $12,266.00 8

  • Business - $342.00 9


  • Total $17,464.80

[7] The amount earned by Ms Bowden whilst mitigating her loss is greater than the remuneration she would have been likely to receive if she had continued in employment for six months. 10 Therefore, on this basis, there is no need to continue the calculations nor is there a necessity to make an order for the payment of compensation by the respondent to Ms Bowden.

[8] Accordingly, no order for payment of compensation is made.

COMMISSIONER

 1   [2012] FWA 6468

 2   Ibid

 3   Ibid at paragraph 78

 4   Letter from Russell Kennedy to Fair Work Australia, dated 15 August 2012

 5   [2012] FWA 6468 at paragraph 82

 6   Email from Health Services Union dated 5 September 2012

 7   [2012] FWA 6468 at paragraph 81 and Exhibit A4

 8   Email from HSU dated 5 September 2012

 9   [2012] FWA 6468 at paragraph 81 and Transcript PN 299 - 304

 10   Ibid at paragraph 77

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR530703>

Details
AGLC
Mrs Gloria BowdenvOttrey Homes - Cobram and District Retirement Village Inc T/A Ottrey Lodge [2012] FWA 9191
Case
[2012] FWA 9191
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mrs Gloria Bowden v Ottrey Homes - Cobram and District Retirement Village Inc trading as Ottrey Lodge, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to Mrs Bowden following a finding of unfair dismissal. The decision was made by Commissioner Cribb in Melbourne on 26 October 2012. The Tribunal had previously ruled that Ms Bowden had been unfairly dismissed, but the amount of compensation was not determined due to insufficient evidence. The parties were subsequently asked to reach an agreement on Ms Bowden's hourly rate of pay and the number of hours worked per fortnight. The parties agreed that Ms Bowden worked 25 hours a week and her rate of pay was $19.43 per hour.

The legal issues before the Tribunal involved determining the amount of compensation to be awarded under sections 392(2)(c), (e) and (f) and section 392(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Tribunal calculated the likely remuneration Ms Bowden would have earned if she had continued in her employment for six months and compared it with her actual earnings during the same period. The Tribunal found that Ms Bowden's actual earnings during the period were greater than the likely remuneration, and therefore no compensation was owed by the respondent. The Tribunal considered the information provided by Ms Bowden's representative, which showed that she had earned $17,464.80 from her other job and business during the period, which was greater than the $12,629.50 she would have earned if she had continued in her employment.

The Tribunal concluded that no compensation was owed by the respondent to Ms Bowden, as her actual earnings were greater than the likely remuneration. The Tribunal found that there was no need to continue the calculations nor was there a necessity to make an order for the payment of compensation. The decision was made based on the evidence provided and the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Tribunal did not make any order for payment of compensation to Ms Bowden.

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.