Ms Lee-Ann Johnson v Stylz Franchising Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 7612

[2014] FWC 7612 Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2014/6869) was lodged against this decision.

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

Ms Lee-Ann Johnson
v
Stylz Franchising Pty Ltd
(U2014/11129)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE SYDNEY, 27 OCTOBER 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] This decision arises from an application for an extension of time for lodgement of an application for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The relationship between Ms Johnson and the respondent ceased on 27 June 2014. Ms Johnson lodged her application before the Fair Work Commission on 22 July 2014. Her application was lodged 9 days outside the statutory time limit.

[3] When determining this application I had before me the Application for Unfair Dismissal lodged by Ms Johnson. There was no explanation for late lodgement in the application itself. I wrote to Ms Johnson on 22 August 2014 outlining the matters I was required to consider pursuant to the Act and asked her to provide a statement addressing these matters within 14 days. Ms Johnson provided a certificate from Dr Sim dated 2 September 2014. It was received on 4 September 2014. The substance of this medical certificate is set out below:

“Ms Lee-Ann Johnson had been RECEIVING MEDICAL TREATMENT AND FOR THE PERIOD 18/6/2014 to 30/07/2014 INCLUSIVE.

She was suffering from severe anxiety due to work-related stress.

This Certificate was completed on 02/09/2014.

Dr Kian Yan Sim”

[4] On 9 September 2014 I corresponded with Ms Johnson as follows:

“You have provided me with a medical certificate dated June and September 2014. How do you say this medical certificate addresses the six criteria set out in my letter of 22 August 2014?

Were you so incapacitated as to be unable to lodge an application?

What other reason do you have for lodging your application outside the time limit?

How were you able to lodge your application on 22 July 2014?”

[5] Ms Johnson provided a response on 12 September 2014. This is extracted below:

“Yes I was very unwell due to loosing [sic] my job. I was so very stressed as I knew it was going to be extremely hard to find another job as I am a mature aged 3rd year apprentice & it is not an easy thing to do at my age, also I have lost my confidence after Debbie Cook (employer) said I had client complaints which I knew nothing about so that has me doubting myself. This is why I was a little late with my complaint I wasn’t sure in what I should do as I was extremely stressed. As to this date I have not found employment it is really hard.”

[6] I issued an Order 1 refusing the application for an extension of time and dismissed Ms Johnson's application on 1 October 2014.

[7] The relevant legislative framework for the exercise of the Fair Work Commission’s discretion in relation to applications of this kind is set out below:

394 Application for unfair dismissal remedy
...
(3) The FWC may allow a further period for the application to be made by a person under subsection (1) if the FWC is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, taking into account:

(a) the reason for the delay; and
(b) whether the person first became aware of the dismissal after it had taken effect; and
(c) any action taken by the person to dispute the dismissal; and
(d) prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay); and
(e) the merits of the application; and
(f) fairness as between the person and other persons in a similar position.

[8] The meaning of “exceptional circumstances” was considered in Nulty v Blue Star Group Pty Ltd[2011] FWAFB 975 where the Full Bench said:

“[10]It is convenient to deal first with the meaning of the expression “exceptional circumstances” in s.366(2). In Cheval Properties Pty Ltd v Smithers a Full Bench of FWA considered the meaning of the expression “exceptional circumstances” in s.394(3) and held:

“[5] The word “exceptional” is relevantly defined in The Macquarie Dictionary as “forming an exception or unusual instance; unusual; extraordinary.” We can apprehend no reason for giving the word a meaning other than its ordinary meaning for the purposes of s.394(3) of the FW Act.”

[11] Given that s.366(2) is in relevantly identical terms to s.394(3), this statement of principle is equally applicable to s.366(2).

[12] The ordinary meaning of the expression “exceptional circumstances” was considered by Rares J in Ho v Professional Services Review Committee No 295 a case involving in s.106KA of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth). His/Her Honour observed:

“23. I am of opinion that the expression ‘exceptional circumstances’ requires consideration of all the circumstances. In Griffiths v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 372 at 379 Brennan and Dawson JJ considered a statutory provision which entitled either a parole board or a court to specify a shorter non-parole period than that required under another section only if it determined that the circumstances justified that course. They said of the appellant’s circumstances:

‘Although no one of these factors was exceptional, in combination they may reasonably be regarded as amounting to exceptional circumstances.’

24. Brennan and Dawson JJ held that the failure in that case to evaluate the relevant circumstances in combination was a failure to consider matters which were relevant to the exercise of the discretion under the section (167 CLR at 379). Deane J, (with whom Gaudron and McHugh JJ expressed their concurrence on tHis/Her point, albeit that they were dissenting) explained that the power under consideration allowed departure from the norm only in the exceptional or special case where the circumstances justified it (167 CLR at 383, 397).

25. And, in Baker v The Queen (2004) 223 CLR 513 at 573 [173] Callinan J referred with approval to what Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ had said in R v Kelly (Edward) [2000] QB 198 at 208, namely:

‘We must construe "exceptional" as an ordinary, familiar English adjective, and not as a term of art. It describes a circumstance which is such as to form an exception, which is out of the ordinary course, or unusual, or special, or uncommon. To be exceptional a circumstance need not be unique, or unprecedented, or very rare; but it cannot be one that is regularly, or routinely, or normally encountered.’

26. Exceptional circumstances within the meaning of s 106KA(2) can include a single exceptional matter, a combination of exceptional factors or a combination of ordinary factors which, although individually of no particular significance, when taken together are seen as exceptional. Thus, the sun and moon appear in the sky everyday and there is nothing exceptional about seeing them both simultaneously during day time. But an eclipse, whether lunar or solar, is exceptional, even though it can be predicted, because it is outside the usual course of events.

27. It is not correct to construe ‘exceptional circumstances’ as being only some unexpected occurrence, although frequently it will be. Nor is it correct to construe the plural ‘circumstances’ as if it were only a singular occurrence, even though it can be a one off situation. The ordinary and natural meaning of ‘exceptional circumstances’ in s 106KA(2) includes a combination of factors which, when viewed together, may reasonably be seen as producing a situation which is out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon. And, the section is directed to the circumstances of the actual practitioner, not a hypothetical being, when he or she initiates or renders the services.”

[13] In summary, the expression “exceptional circumstances” has its ordinary meaning and requires consideration of all the circumstances. To be exceptional, circumstances must be out of the ordinary course, or unusual, or special, or uncommon but need not be unique, or unprecedented, or very rare. Circumstances will not be exceptional if they are regularly, or routinely, or normally encountered. Exceptional circumstances can include a single exceptional matter, a combination of exceptional factors or a combination of ordinary factors which, although individually of no particular significance, when taken together are seen as exceptional. It is not correct to construe “exceptional circumstances” as being only some unexpected occurrence, although frequently it will be. Nor is it correct to construe the plural “circumstances” as if it were only a singular occurrence, even though it can be a one off situation. The ordinary and natural meaning of “exceptional circumstances” includes a combination of factors which, when viewed together, may reasonably be seen as producing a situation which is out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon.” [Endnotes not reproduced]

[9] For exceptional circumstances to arise as contemplated by s394 of the Act, it is not necessary that the applicant for that extension of time be overtaken by a catastrophic event. Reasons for delay in the category of extreme events are not necessary to meet the test. All of the factors outlined in s394 (3) must be considered and weighed when deciding whether or not exceptional circumstances, circumstances sufficient to support an exception, exist.

[10] I considered the various criteria to which my attention is directed by s.394 (3) of the Act.

reason for the delay-s.394(3)(a)

[11] The reasons Ms Johnson provided for her delay in lodgement were insufficient to explain her failure to lodge on time. I was not satisfied that there was evidence to establish an incapacity to lodge. I was not persuaded that Ms Johnson's difficulties were out of the ordinary, unusual or uncommon.

whether the person first became aware of the dismissal after it had taken effect-s.394(3)(b)

[12] Ms Johnson became aware of the cessation of her relationship with the respondent on 27 June 2014.

any action taken by the person to dispute the dismissal-s.394(3)(c)

[13] Ms Johnson disputed her dismissal by lodging this application.

prejudice to the employer-s.394(3)(d)

[14] There would be no greater prejudice to the respondent caused by her application being listed now than there would have been had it been lodged in time. Prejudice to the respondent was a neutral consideration.

the merits of the application-s.394(3)(e)

[15] Merit was as a neutral issue in my consideration of this application.

fairness as between Ms Johnson and other persons in a similar position-S.394(3)(f)

[16] There was no issue of fairness in relation to any other person in a similar position.

[17] I was not satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances which would warrant my granting an exception to the statutory time limit and on that basis I dismissed the application.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

 1   PR556130

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR557079>