Ms Celeste Scott v Rattler Railway Company Ltd

[2022] FWC 1258

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Ms Celeste Scott
v

Rattler Railway Company Ltd

(U2022/69)

COMMISSIONER HUNT

BRISBANE, 23 MAY 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – consent decision

The parties have reached an agreed position in this matter and have requested that the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) issue a decision by consent in finalisation of this matter.

By consent of the parties, the Commission makes the following decision:

A.Ms Celeste Scott was employed by the Rattler Railway Company Ltd (the Respondent);
B.Ms Scott was dismissed from her employment with the Respondent on 10 December 2021, notified to her on 15 December 2021;
C.Ms Scott’s dismissal was unfair within the meaning of s.385 of the Fair Work Act 2009;
D.Ms Scott has been paid three weeks’ notice and four weeks’ redundancy by the Respondent; and
E.The Commission shall order that no remedy is to be awarded to Ms Scott.

COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Celeste Scott brought a claim against Rattler Railway Company Ltd in the Fair Work Commission, seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. Ms Scott was dismissed by the company on 10 December 2021 and notified of the dismissal on 15 December 2021. The central issue before the Commission was whether the dismissal was unfair under section 385 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The case was resolved through a consent decision, with both parties agreeing on the terms of the dismissal and the appropriate remedy.

The Commission considered the nature of the dismissal and whether it was justified under the circumstances. The Fair Work Act 2009 provides that a dismissal is unfair if it is harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. In this case, the Commission found that the dismissal was indeed unfair based on the agreed position of the parties. Ms Scott had been paid three weeks' notice and four weeks' redundancy by the company. Despite the unfair nature of the dismissal, the parties agreed that no further remedy should be awarded to Ms Scott.

In light of the consent decision and the agreed terms, the Commission ordered that no remedy be awarded to Ms Scott. This decision was made in accordance with the wishes of both parties, who had negotiated a resolution to the dispute. The Commission's order finalises the matter, with both parties having reached a mutually acceptable outcome.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established