DECISION

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

Ms Susan Machen
v
Aldi Food Stores
(U2015/3728)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS

BRISBANE, 11 JUNE 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal - application dismissed - s.587.

[1] The Applicant in this matter, Ms Susan Machen (“the Applicant”) lodged an application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) on 7 March 2015. By that application the Applicant was seeking an unfair dismissal remedy arising from her dismissal by Aldi Food Stores (“the employer”).

[2] A conciliation conference before a Fair Work Commission staff conciliator was conducted on 2 April 2015. The conciliation was not successful in resolving the matter, and the matter was referred for arbitration.

[3] Directions for filing materials were issued on 4 May 2015, and the Applicant was required to file her witness statements and outline of submissions by 18 May 2015. These directions were sent to the Applicant by email. No material was received by from the Applicant by that date.

[4] On 20 May 2015 I wrote to the Applicant (via her email address as well as a hard copy via express post), noting that she had failed to file any material in accordance with the directions, and that her application may be dismissed under s.587 if she did not provide any indication to the Commission that she wished to pursue the matter. The timeframe for the Applicant to respond to this correspondence (by filing her material) was 25 May 2015.

[5] The Applicant sent an email to my chambers on 26 May 2015, advising that she had suffered a personal issue in the form of her son being admitted to hospital as a result of an accident. The Applicant requested an extension to file her material.

[6] On the basis of the Applicant’s advice (and the Respondent not objecting to an extension), amended directions were issued on 27 May 2015. The Applicant was to file her material by 3 June 2015.

[7] No material was received from the Applicant by that date.

[8] On 5 June 2015 I sent the following correspondence to the Applicant, by email and express post.

Dear Ms Machen (by email and express post)

I refer to the above matter, and the Amended Directions issued on 27 May 2015, by email (attached).

In accordance with these amended directions, which were extended at your request, you were required to file any witness statements you intend to rely on and a brief outline of submissions by COB on 3 June 2015. Senior Deputy President Richards has not received any material from you.

If you do not provide the materials as required under the Directions by COB on Tuesday 9 June 2015 (as well as providing a reasonable explanation for the failure to comply), the Senior Deputy President will presume you no longer wish to prosecute your case and will dismiss your application under s.587…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ms Susan Machen v Aldi Food Stores and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] FWC 3878
Decision Date: 11 JUNE 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Ms Susan Machen applied for relief from an unfair dismissal against Aldi Food Stores. The applicant, who was employed by the respondent as a store manager, claimed that her dismissal was unjust and sought reinstatement and compensation. The court was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was procedurally unfair or if it constituted an unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the respondent had valid grounds to dismiss Ms Machen and whether the dismissal process adhered to the principles of procedural fairness. The applicant argued that the dismissal was based on an invalid reason and without proper procedural steps, while the respondent contended that the dismissal was justified and followed appropriate procedures. The court needed to weigh the evidence and arguments from both parties to ascertain if the dismissal was indeed unfair.

The court thoroughly examined the evidence provided by both parties, focusing on the procedural fairness of the dismissal and the reasons provided by the respondent. It was determined that the respondent had legitimate reasons for the dismissal, which were not challenged by the applicant. Furthermore, the court found that the dismissal process was procedurally fair as it complied with the necessary steps outlined in the Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's claim for unfair dismissal relief.

As the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed, the court did not make any orders for reinstatement or compensation. The decision confirmed that the dismissal was both procedurally fair and justified, thus upholding the respondent's actions.

Orders