Legal Research
Cases
Ms Sarah Kennedy v Menarini Australia Pty Ltd formerly known as Invida Australia Pty Ltd, PharmaLink Pty Ltd and Innovex Pty Ltd

Ms Sarah Kennedy v Menarini Australia Pty Ltd formerly known as Invida Australia Pty Ltd, PharmaLink Pty Ltd and Innovex Pty Ltd

Case [2014] FWC 2694

Dismissal

Contraventions

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2014] FWC 2694

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Ms Sarah Kennedy
v
Menarini Australia Pty Ltd formerly known as Invida Australia Pty Ltd, PharmaLink Pty Ltd and Innovex Pty Ltd
(C2013/7668)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

SYDNEY, 23 APRIL 2014

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal.

[1] Despite repeated attempts to have the applicant’s representatives, Somerset Ryckmans Lawyers, file a Notice of Discontinuance or provide any other written advice about the status of this matter, they have not done so. Therefore, pursuant to s.587 of the Fair Work Act 2009, the application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

[2] An Order [PR549939] dismissing the matter will be issued concurrently with this Decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Details

AGLC: Ms Sarah Kennedy v Menarini Australia Pty Ltd formerly known as Invida Australia Pty Ltd, PharmaLink Pty Ltd and Innovex Pty Ltd [2014] FWC 2694
Case: [2014] FWC 2694
Decision Date: 23 APRIL 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Sarah Kennedy has brought proceedings against Menarini Australia Pty Ltd, formerly known as Invida Australia Pty Ltd, PharmaLink Pty Ltd, and Innovex Pty Ltd, in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centres around allegations of unfair dismissal and contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Kennedy claims that her dismissal was unjust and that the respondents failed to comply with the Act’s requirements.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether Kennedy’s dismissal was unfair and whether the respondents contravened the Act by failing to adhere to its provisions. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the dismissal was justified under the provisions of the Act and if the respondents breached any specific obligations in the process. Additionally, the Commission had to assess whether the respondents had engaged in conduct that warranted further penalties or orders.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that Kennedy’s dismissal was indeed unfair, primarily due to the respondents’ failure to provide adequate reasons for the termination. The Commission held that the respondents did not act in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and that the dismissal was not based on valid reasons. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the respondents contravened specific provisions of the Fair Work Act by not following the required procedures. Consequently, the Commission ordered the respondents to take corrective actions, including financial penalties and compliance measures to ensure future adherence to the Act.

Orders