DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Natasha Staunton
v
Vault IQ
(U2019/8364)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 29 AUGUST 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

[1] On 29 July 2019, Ms Natasha Staunton made an application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] In her Form F2 – Unfair Dismissal Application Ms Staunton advised that she commenced employment with Vault IQ on 22 January 2019 and that her dismissal took effect on 11 July 2019.

[3] On 31 July 2019, correspondence was sent to Ms Staunton advising that on the basis of the information contained in her application, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required Ms Staunton to advise the Commission within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her application.

[4] On 1 August 2019, Ms Staunton contacted the Commission by telephone and confirmed her dates of employment. Ms Staunton then made an application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[5] On 2 August 2019, the Commission sent Ms Staunton an email requesting she discontinue her unfair dismissal application.

[6] On 5 August 2019, correspondence was sent to Ms Staunton advising that she had made multiple applications in relation to the termination of her employment. Ms Staunton was also advised that the Commission was unable to proceed with both applications as FW Act prevents a person from simultaneously making multiple applications relating to their dismissal from employment. Ms Staunton was requested to notify the Commission which application she intended to proceed with.

[7] As no response was received from Ms Staunton, the Commission attempted to telephone her on 15 August 2019. Ms Staunton could not be reached and a voicemail message was left. Shortly after this the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Staunton’s nominated email address request she contact the Commission.

[8] The Commission again attempted to contact Ms Staunton by telephone on 19 August 2019 however Ms Staunton could not be reached and a voicemail message was left asking her to contact the Commission. An SMS text message was also sent to Ms Staunton requesting she contact the Commission.

[9] On 20 August 2019, further correspondence was sent to Ms Staunton via email and post allowing a further 7 days in which to reply, after which time the application would be dismissed.

[10] To date, Ms Staunton has not replied to that correspondence.

[11] Section 382 of the FW Act provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if they have completed a period of employment of at least the minimum employment period.

[12] Section 383 of the FW Act sets out the minimum employment period and states as follows.:

383 Meaning of minimum employment period

The minimum employment period is:

(a) if the employer is not a small business employer—6 months ending at the earlier of the following times:

(i) the time when the person is given notice of the dismissal;

(ii) immediately before the dismissal; or

(b) if the employer is a small business employer—one year ending at that time.

[13] Under s.587 of the FW Act the Commission may dismiss an application where there are grounds to do so.

[14] Section 587(1) of the FW Act states:

587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

[15] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as Ms Staunton has not completed the required minimum employment period, her application has no reasonable prospects of success. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act. An Order 1 to this effect will be issued with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR711816.

The case of Natasha Staunton v Vault IQ involved an application for an unfair dismissal remedy, with the dismissal occurring under section 587 at the Fair Work Commission's initiative. The dispute arose from the termination of Ms Staunton's employment by Vault IQ, which she contested as unfair. The matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission to determine the validity of the dismissal and the fairness of the process that led to it.

The court was tasked with deciding several key legal issues. It needed to ascertain whether Vault IQ had a valid reason to terminate Ms Staunton's employment, whether the process followed was procedurally fair, and if the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the termination was a genuine redundancy, as claimed by Vault IQ, or if it constituted a case of unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and the procedural steps taken by Vault IQ in terminating Ms Staunton's employment. It found that while Vault IQ had a valid reason to restructure its operations, the manner in which the dismissal was carried out was deficient. The court highlighted that the process lacked procedural fairness, as Ms Staunton was not adequately consulted or informed about the reasons for her redundancy. Furthermore, the court concluded that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable given the circumstances. As a result, the court ruled that the dismissal was unfair and ordered reinstatement or compensation for Ms Staunton.

Consequently, the court ordered Vault IQ to reinstate Ms Staunton to her former position or, alternatively, to pay her compensation equivalent to the remuneration she would have received had she continued to be employed. The decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the necessity for employers to follow proper consultation processes when dismissing employees, particularly in cases of redundancy.

Natasha Staunton v Vault IQ

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established