| [2017] FWC 2657 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.365 - Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal
Mrs Ljubinka Townsend
v
Lift Brands Australia
(C2017/908)
COMMISSIONER HUNT | BRISBANE, 16 MAY 2017 |
Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application to amend.
[1] Mrs Ljubinka Townsend has made an application pursuant to s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) to deal with a General Protections Dispute involving a dismissal.
[2] Mrs Townsend’s application was lodged on 17 February 2017 and stated she was employed by Lift Brands Australia (Lift Brands) from 20 January 2017 to 13 February 2017.
[3] The application alleges contraventions of sections 340, 343, 344, 351 and 352 of the Act
[4] Lift Brands lodged a ‘Form F8A – Response to general protections application’ on 24 February 2017 in which it denied it was the employer of Mrs Townsend.
[5] The matter was scheduled for conciliation before a staff conciliator on a number of occasions and for a variety of reasons a conciliation could not take place
[6] On 18 April 2017, Mrs Townsend made an application to the Commission to vary the Respondent named in her application from Lift Brands to GG Currumbin Pty Ltd T/A Snap Fitness (Snap Fitness).
[7] Mrs Townsend contended she had erroneously named Lift Brands Australia because it is a related franchisor of Snap Fitness and the line manager she had been reporting to in her employment was an employee of Lift Brands.
[8] At the direction of the Commission, Mrs Townsend filed payslips confirming that Snap Fitness was her employer at the time of her dismissal and Snap Fitness advised that it did not object to being named as the Respondent.
[9] Section 586 of the Act states:
“586 Correcting and amending applications and documents etc.
The FWC may:
(a) allow a correction or amendment of any application, or other document relating to a matter before the FWC, on any terms that it considers appropriate…”
Consideration
[10] I accept Mrs Townsend’s reasons for incorrectly naming Lift Brands as the Respondent to the application and note that Snap Fitness do not objection to the Commission making orders to amend the application to name them as the Respondent.
[11] Section 586 provides the Commission with a broad discretion to correct or amend an application ‘on any terms it considers appropriate’.
[12] For the above reasons I exercise my discretion pursuant to s.586(a) of the Act to amend the application. The Respondent will be amended from Lift Brands Australia to GG Currumbin Pty Ltd T/A Snap Fitness.
[13] An order [PR592874] to that effect will be issued with this decision.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR592923>
- AGLC
- Mrs Ljubinka Townsend v Lift Brands Australia [2017] FWC 2657
- Case
- [2017] FWC 2657
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether it was appropriate to permit the amendment of the application to include additional claims about procedural fairness. The Commission considered the principles governing amendments to applications in employment matters, including the need for amendments to be timely, not to cause prejudice to the opposing party, and to be in the interest of justice. The Commission also assessed whether the new claims were related to the original subject matter of the application and whether they arose from the same set of facts.
The Commission determined that the amendment was permissible as it was made in a timely manner and did not prejudice the respondent. The new claims were directly related to the original subject matter of the application, focusing on the fairness of the dismissal process. The Commission held that allowing the amendment was in the interest of justice, as it would enable a comprehensive resolution of all issues pertaining to the dismissal. Consequently, the application to amend was granted, allowing Mrs Townsend to pursue her additional claims regarding procedural fairness.
The Commission's final order was that the application to amend the initial application to include additional claims about procedural fairness was granted. This decision enabled Mrs Townsend to proceed with her claims in their entirety, ensuring a fair and comprehensive resolution of the dispute. The Commission set a timeline for the filing of the amended application and scheduled a hearing to address the new claims.
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.