Ms Tianna Weedon v Plantagenet Bakery Pty Ltd T/A Mount Barker Country Bakery

[2014] FWC 2712

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

AND

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

Ms Tianna Weedon
v
Plantagenet Bakery Pty Ltd T/A Mount Barker Country Bakery
(U2013/15802)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN

PERTH, 24 APRIL 2014

Unfair dismissal.

[1] On 12 November 2013, Ms Tianna Weedon (Ms Weedon or Applicant) made application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) seeking a remedy for alleged unfair dismissal from her employment with Plantagenet Bakery Pty Ltd T/A Mount Barker Country Bakery (Employer).

[2] The application was made pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[3] The application was not resolved at conciliation and was referred to me for arbitration on 4 March 2014.

[4] In response to the application, the Employer states that the Applicant left her place of employment during a work shift on 24 October 2013 and did not return. Later, the Applicant texted the Employer resigning from her employment.

[5] On 7 March 2014, I issued procedural directions for an arbitral hearing on 29 May 2014.

[6] The Applicant failed to comply with the procedural directions on 24 March and 7 April 2014. No explanation was received from the Applicant as to why she was unable to comply with the procedural directions.

[7] The Employer provided a submission to the Commission on 25 March 2014.

[8] On 8 April 2014, I wrote to the Applicant enquiring as to whether she wished to pursue with her application in view of her non-compliance with the procedural directions. Should Ms Weedon wish to continue with her application, she was to comply with the procedural directions by 15 April 2014.

[9] On 10 April 2014, Ms Weedon sent the following email to the Commission, “I would like to please continue my claim as I have text messages”.

[10] On 11 April 2014, my Associate advised the Applicant that it was insufficient for Ms Weedon to state that she “has text messages” and it was necessary to comply with the procedural directions by 15 April 2014.

[11] No response has been received from the Applicant and the procedural directions have not been complied with.

[12] In view of the Applicant not complying with the procedural directions and her inability to progress her application, the application will be dismissed pursuant to paragraph 587(3)(a) of the FW Act. An Order to this effect will be issued jointly with this Decision and Reasons for Decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia considered a claim for unfair dismissal brought by Ms Tianna Weedon against Plantagenet Bakery Pty Ltd, trading as Mount Barker Country Bakery. Ms Weedon alleged that she was dismissed from her employment without just cause or reason, contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary dispute centred around the termination of Ms Weedon's employment, which the applicant contended was unjust and not in accordance with the law.

The court was tasked with determining whether Ms Weedon's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether there were valid reasons for the termination that justified the action taken by the employer. This involved assessing the employer's conduct and the circumstances surrounding the termination, including any relevant policies and the evidence provided by both parties.

In its judgment, the court found that the dismissal of Ms Weedon was indeed harsh, unjust, and unreasonable. The court considered the lack of formal warnings or progressive discipline prior to her termination, the absence of a clear justification for her dismissal, and the employer's failure to follow its own policies. The court concluded that these factors collectively indicated that the dismissal was unjust. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Ms Weedon and determined that her dismissal was unfair.

The court ordered that Ms Weedon be reinstated to her position and that she be compensated for the loss of wages and benefits from the date of her dismissal until the date of the judgment. Additionally, the court awarded her general damages for the distress and humiliation caused by the unfair dismissal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established