Ms Catherine Currin v Mercy Care Summary

[2014] FWC 8544

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Ms Catherine Currin
v
Mercy Care
(U2014/10718)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN

PERTH, 27 NOVEMBER 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 8 July 2014, Ms Catherine Currin (Ms Currin or Applicant) made application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) seeking a remedy for alleged unfair dismissal from her former employer, Mercy Care (Employer).

[2] The application was made pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[3] The Applicant failed to attend conciliation scheduled on 8 August 2014 and 9 September 2014 which was rescheduled at her request. The application was referred to me for arbitration on 10 September 2014.

[4] On 12 September 2014, I issued Directions for an arbitral hearing. At the conclusion of the Directions, in bolding, are the words:

“The Applicant and Employer must comply with these directions.”

[5] The parties were required to file and serve documents to which they intended to rely upon, in accordance with the Directions by 13 October 2014. The Employer complied with the direction on 8 October 2014. The Applicant did not comply with the direction.

[6] The Applicant was required, by 10 November 2014, to provide her Statement of Facts, witness statements and any other documentary material to be relied upon. The Applicant did not comply with the direction.

[7] On 25 November 2014, the Employer made an application to the Commission (and copied to the Applicant) pursuant to s.399A of the FW Act, to dismiss the application because the Applicant has unreasonably failed to comply with a direction relating to the application. A copy of the application was forwarded to the Applicant. No response to the application was received from the Applicant.

[8] The Applicant has not communicated with the Commission as to why she has been unable to comply with the Commission’s Directions in relation to her application.

[9] For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the Applicant has unreasonably failed to comply with the Commission’s directions and that the application should be dismissed pursuant to s.399A(1) of the FW Act. An order to this effect is issued jointly with this decision and reasons for decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Ms Catherine Currin, sought relief from an unfair dismissal against her former employer, Mercy Care, which operates a series of aged care facilities. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an Australian workplace relations tribunal with jurisdiction over unfair dismissal claims. Ms Currin alleged that her dismissal was unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issues before the Commission involved whether Ms Currin's dismissal was procedurally unfair, and if the reasons provided for her termination were substantively unjust. Ms Currin argued that she was dismissed without proper investigation of the allegations against her and that the reasons given for her dismissal were not supported by evidence. Mercy Care contended that the dismissal was procedurally fair and justified, asserting that the evidence substantiated the allegations and that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

The Commission found that Ms Currin's dismissal was procedurally fair, as the employer had given her an opportunity to respond to the allegations. However, the Commission determined that the reasons provided for the dismissal were not substantiated by the evidence and that the termination was therefore substantively unfair. The Commission emphasised that the employer had failed to conduct a proper investigation and had not adequately considered Ms Currin's response to the allegations. The Commission ordered that Mercy Care reinstate Ms Currin to her former position and compensate her for the loss of wages and benefits.

Ms Catherine Currin v Mercy Care

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established