Ms Caroline Yip v Volunteer Task Force Inc Summary

[2014] FWC 509

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Ms Caroline Yip
v
Volunteer Task Force Inc
(U2013/12791)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN

PERTH, 22 JANUARY 2014

Unfair dismissal.

[1] On 21 August 2013, Ms Caroline Yip (Ms Yip or Applicant) made application to the Fair Work commission (Commission) seeking a remedy for alleged unfair dismissal from her former employer, Volunteer Task Force Inc (VTF or Employer).

[2] The application was made in accordance with s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[3] The Employer does not dispute that Ms Yip meets the requirements of the FW Act to be protected from unfair dismissal.

[4] At the hearing on 20 January 2014, the Employer requested, and Ms Yip agreed, that the application proceed into conference in the first instance.

[5] In conference, the Employer conceded that the evidence demonstrated that Ms Yip’s dismissal was not effected in accordance with its staff performance dispute procedure; for that reason the Employer would concede that Ms Yip’s dismissal was unfair.

[6] The Employer sought, pursuant to s.398(4) of the FW Act, that Ms Yip’s application be disposed of by a decision of the Commission, by consent, that Ms Yip was unfairly dismissed.

[7] Having examined the documentary evidence provided as a result of procedural directions, considered the views expressed in conference and by consent of the parties I find that Ms Yip was unfairly dismissed from her employment with VTF on 7 August 2013.

[8] With respect to the remedy for Ms Yip’s unfair dismissal, the parties have reached agreement which has been set out on transcript and will be reduced to a Deed of Settlement.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

C Yip, the Applicant.

D Jones of CCIWA for the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2014:

Perth

20 January.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission, in the case of Ms Caroline Yip against Volunteer Task Force Inc, heard an application for unfair dismissal. Ms Yip, an employee of Volunteer Task Force, sought relief on the grounds that her dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The company argued that the dismissal was justified due to her failure to adhere to the organisation's policies. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the dismissal complied with the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether it met the criteria for unfair dismissal.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether Ms Yip's dismissal was procedurally fair and whether it was substantively fair. Procedural fairness involved examining whether proper processes were followed in terminating her employment, including whether she was given adequate notice and an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. Substantively, the Commission had to assess whether the dismissal was justified based on the company's evidence and whether it was proportionate to the breach of policy.

The Commission found that while the procedural aspects of the dismissal were generally followed, there were significant deficiencies in the communication and documentation provided to Ms Yip. These issues led the Commission to conclude that the dismissal was not procedurally fair. Additionally, the Commission determined that the penalty of dismissal was not proportionate to the breach, given the nature of the policy violation and the circumstances surrounding it. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the dismissal was unfair and ordered reinstatement and compensation for Ms Yip.

Following the Commission's decision, the final orders included the reinstatement of Ms Yip to her previous position with Volunteer Task Force Inc, along with compensation for lost wages and entitlements. The company was also directed to review and improve its internal policies and procedures to prevent similar issues in the future.

Ms Caroline Yip v Volunteer Task Force Inc

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established