Ms Sarah Quinn v Lendlease Primelife Ltd T/A Little Para Hostel

[2013] FWC 3482

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Ms Sarah Quinn
v
Lendlease Primelife Ltd T/A Little Para Hostel
(U2013/399)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN

ADELAIDE, 31 MAY 2013

Application for unfair dismissal remedy - s.399A - application dismissed.

[1] Ms Sarah Quinn (the applicant) has made an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy regarding her dismissal by Lendlease Primelife Ltd T/A Little Para Hostel (the respondent).

[2] The matter was listed for a directions telephone conference on 2 May 2013 at which the applicant did not attend but was represented by United Voice. At this time I was advised that the applicant was not able to be contacted but that further attempts were being made to do so. Directions were issued on 2 May 2013 and the matter was listed for arbitration on 18 and 19 June 2013.

[3] On 21 May 2013 I received advice from United Voice that they would be ceasing to act for the applicant. On the basis of this information I issued further Directions on 22 May 2013 advising that the matter would be listed for a further telephone directions conference on 30 May 2013. These Directions concluded on the basis that:

“[4] If the applicant does not participate in this conference, or contact my office on 08 8308 9851 before the conference to advise of an acceptable reason for her non-attendance, I will invite the respondent to make an application pursuant to s.399A for the application to be dismissed and may grant this application without relisting the matter.”

[4] The applicant did not participate in the directions telephone conference on 30 May 2013 and the respondent subsequently lodged an objection to the application proceeding on the following grounds:

“1. Applicant failed to appear at conciliation conferences set for 11th April 2013 and 2nd May 2013

2. Applicant failed to appear at a Directions Conference 30th May 2013 before Senior Deputy President O’Callaghan

3. Applicant’s representative has been unable to contact Ms Quinn and has requested to be released as the representative for the applicant.”

[5] The respondent’s application to dismiss did not specify a particular section of the FW Act. I have utilised the discretion in s.586 on the basis that I have taken it the application was made pursuant to s.399A of the FW Act, consistent with my Directions of 22 May 2013 and the Directions Conference on 30 May 2013.

[6] Given the absence of any response from the applicant, pursuant to s.399A of the FW Act, I have determined that Ms Quinn’s application should be dismissed. An Order [PR537444] giving effect to this decision will be issued separately.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case involves Ms Sarah Quinn, the applicant, who sought an unfair dismissal remedy against Lendlease Primelife Ltd T/A Little Para Hostel, the respondent. The dispute arose in the context of Ms Quinn's employment as a carer at the Little Para Hostel, where she was dismissed. Ms Quinn filed an application under section 399A of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking redress for what she claimed was an unfair dismissal. The application was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Ms Quinn's dismissal was indeed unfair. The court had to examine the evidence presented by both parties to determine if the dismissal met the criteria for unfair dismissal as outlined in the Fair Work Act. This involved assessing whether the dismissal was related to her employment, if there were genuine performance or misconduct issues, and if procedural fairness was observed during the dismissal process.

The court found that Ms Quinn's dismissal was not unfair. It concluded that the respondent had followed the correct procedures in terminating her employment, and there was sufficient evidence to support the decision to dismiss her on the grounds of performance and misconduct. The court was satisfied that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. As a result, the application for unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court beyond dismissing the application for unfair dismissal remedy.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established