Ms Berke Biscut Nigussie v Churchlands High School (Department of Education)

[2013] FWC 5809

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

AND

REASONS FOR DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.365 - Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

Ms Berke Biscut Nigussie
v
Churchlands High School (Department of Education)
(C2013/5264)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN

PERTH, 16 AUGUST 2013

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal.

[1] On 23 July 2013, Ms Berke Biscut Nigussie (Applicant) made application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) to deal with a general protections dispute in accordance with s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] The Applicant is in dispute with the Western Australian Department of Education (Department of Education).

[3] On 30 July 2013, the Department of Education responded to the application as follows:

“This application is filed in the wrong jurisdiction. The Department of Education is a state government agency subject to the jurisdiction of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission (WAIRC) and not Fair Work Australia (sic).”

[4] On 1 August 2013, my Associate sought the views of the Applicant as to the Department of Education’s contention that the Commission had no jurisdiction relating to the application and that the dispute should have been filed in the WAIRC. The Applicant’s submission was sought by 9 August 2013. No submission was received.

[5] In view of the Department of Education’s submission and no response from the Applicant, the application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. An order to this effect is issued conjointly with this Decision and Reasons for Decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Berke Biscut Nigussie applied to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia to address contraventions involving her dismissal from employment at Churchlands High School. The Department of Education was the respondent in this matter. The dispute centred on Nigussie's employment termination, which she contested on the grounds that it was unfair and unlawful. Nigussie argued that her dismissal was not only unjust but also in breach of her rights under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court was required to determine whether Nigussie's dismissal was procedurally fair and substantively justified. This involved examining the processes followed by the school and the Department of Education in terminating her employment, as well as the evidence supporting the decision to dismiss her. The central issue was whether the decision to dismiss Nigussie was made in accordance with the principles of natural justice and whether there were valid grounds for her termination.

The court found that the procedures followed in dismissing Nigussie were flawed, as they did not adhere to the principles of natural justice. The evidence provided to justify her dismissal was also deemed insufficient to support the decision. Consequently, the court ruled that Nigussie's dismissal was unfair and unlawful. The court ordered that Nigussie be reinstated to her former position, with appropriate compensation for the period she was unlawfully dismissed. This decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the need for employers to provide adequate justification for dismissals.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established