Ms Maria Salagaras v Show Group Pty Limited

[2024] FWC 1696

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Ms Maria Salagaras
v

Show Group Pty Limited

(U2024/5501)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SLEVIN

SYDNEY, 27 JUNE 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – s.394 extension of time.

Ms Maria Salagaras has applied for an unfair dismissal remedy under Part 3-2 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Ms Salagaras alleges that she was unfairly dismissed employment with Show Group Pty Limited on or around 6 March 2010. She seeks reinstatement on a part-time basis. The application is made over 14 years after the dismissal took effect.

Section 394 of the Act requires unfair dismissal applications to be made within 21 days after the dismissal took effect or such further period as the Commission allows under s. 394(3). Section 394(3) permits the Commission to extend the time limit for the filing of an application in exceptional circumstances. The Commission is required to take into account the matters in paragraphs (a) to (f) of s. 394(3).

Ms Salagaras seeks to have the time limit extended. She was asked to provide material in support of that application addressing the criteria relevant to extensions of time. Ms Salagaras provided material but none of that material addressed the matters in s. 394(3). Given no cogent material has been provided in support of extending the time to file the application I refuse the application.

The application is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Maria Salagaras has applied to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging she was unfairly dismissed by Show Group Pty Limited on or around 6 March 2010. The application is made over 14 years after the dismissal took effect, well beyond the 21-day period required by s. 394 of the Act. The central issue before the Deputy President was whether the Commission should extend the time limit for filing the application in the circumstances of this case, pursuant to s. 394(3) of the Act.

The Deputy President considered whether the application met the criteria for an extension of time under s. 394(3). This involves considering factors such as whether the applicant was unaware of the reasons for dismissal until some time after the dismissal, whether the delay in filing the application was reasonable, and whether the employer would be unduly prejudiced if the application was heard. Ms Salagaras provided some material in support of her application, but the Deputy President found that it did not address the specific criteria set out in s. 394(3). Given that the application failed to demonstrate any of the relevant factors, the Deputy President determined that the application should be dismissed.

In reaching this decision, the Deputy President highlighted that while the delay in filing the application was significant, Ms Salagaras did not provide sufficient evidence to justify an extension of time. The Deputy President concluded that the application was not made in exceptional circumstances and therefore the time limit for filing the application could not be extended. The application for an unfair dismissal remedy is dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established