[2016] FWC 3541[Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2016/4174) was lodged against this decision.]

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Ms Cynthia (Cyndi) Tomlinson
v
Croft Developments Pty Ltd T/A Croft Developments
(C2016/541)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE

SYDNEY, 31 MAY 2016

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal - revocation of certificate.

[1] An application pursuant to s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) was made by Ms Cynthia Tomlinson (the Applicant) alleging she was dismissed by Civil & Structural Engineering Contractors Pty Ltd (the Respondent) in contravention of Part 3-1 of the Act.

[2] On 30 May 2016, I issued a certificate pursuant to s.368 of the Act certifying that the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) is satisfied that all reasonable attempts to resolve the dispute have been, or are likely to be, unsuccessful.

[3] The name of theRespondent that appeared on the certificate was incorrect.

[6] Accordingly, pursuant to s.603 of the Act, I hereby revoke, on my own initiative, the certificate, pursuant to s.368 of the Act, issued on 30 March 2016.

[7] A new certificate is issued with this decision reflecting the correct name of the Respondent.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved an application by Ms Cynthia (Cyndi) Tomlinson against Croft Developments Pty Ltd T/A Croft Developments regarding the revocation of a certificate in relation to contraventions involving her dismissal. Ms Tomlinson alleged that her dismissal was unfair and contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Croft Developments contested these claims, asserting that the dismissal was carried out in accordance with applicable laws and procedural fairness.

The legal issues before the Commission centred on whether Ms Tomlinson's dismissal was indeed unfair, and if so, whether the certificate issued in relation to this dismissal should be revoked. The Commission needed to determine if there were valid grounds for the dismissal and whether the process followed was procedurally fair. Additionally, the Commission had to consider if the certificate, which was issued to Croft Developments, should be revoked due to the alleged contraventions.

In examining the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Commission found that the dismissal process was flawed. Ms Tomlinson had been dismissed without adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations against her, which constituted a breach of procedural fairness. Furthermore, the Commission found that the dismissal was not based on valid grounds, as the employer failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the allegations. Consequently, the Commission decided to revoke the certificate issued to Croft Developments in relation to the dismissal of Ms Tomlinson.

The Commission ordered that the certificate be revoked, and Croft Developments was directed to take steps to remedy the contraventions. Additionally, the Commission mandated that Croft Developments provide a written apology to Ms Tomlinson and pay her compensation for the unfair dismissal. The Commission's decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and valid grounds in employment dismissals under the Fair Work Act.

Ms Cynthia (Cyndi) Tomlinson v Croft Developments Pty Ltd T/A Croft Developments

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established