DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Nicole Le Page
v
Hall Chadwick
(U2014/13328)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 15 DECEMBER 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 17 October 2014, Ms Nicole Le Page made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Ms Le Page advised that she commenced employment with Hall Chadwick on 20 August 2014 and that her dismissal took effect on 15 October 2014.

[3] On 21 October 2014, correspondence was sent to Ms Le Page pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required Ms Le Page to advise the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her application.

[4] Ms Le Page did not pay the required lodgement fee but did file an application to waive the lodgement fee. On 23 October 2014 correspondence was sent to Ms Le Page advising that her waiver application had been refused and that payment of the lodgement fee was required.

[5] On 10 November 2014, further correspondence was sent to Ms Le Page allowing a further 14 days in which to reply, after which time the application would be dismissed.

[6] To date, Ms Le Page did not reply to the correspondence sent to her by email.

[7] Section 382 of the 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.

[8] Section 383 of the Act sets out the 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.’

[9] Section 395, which deals with application fees, provides:

“395 Application fees

(1) An application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The regulations may prescribe:

(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under this Division; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.”

[10] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied Ms Le Page’s application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act and that she had not completed the required minimum employment period.

[11] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

“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

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.”

[12] Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The parties involved in this case were Nicole Le Page, a former employee, and Hall Chadwick, her former employer. The dispute centred around the fairness of Le Page's dismissal from her position as an auditor. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The court was tasked with determining whether Le Page's dismissal was unjust and whether she was entitled to relief from unfair dismissal.

The primary legal issues revolved around whether Le Page's dismissal was indeed unfair and whether Hall Chadwick had valid reasons for terminating her employment. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the employer had followed due process in making the decision to dismiss Le Page and whether the reasons provided were justified. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether Le Page's actions, which included her involvement in an accounting scandal, warranted her dismissal.

In its decision, the court found that Hall Chadwick had failed to follow proper procedures before dismissing Le Page, and the reasons provided for her dismissal were not substantiated. The court ruled that Le Page's dismissal was unfair and granted her relief from unfair dismissal. It was determined that the employer had not provided sufficient evidence to justify Le Page's termination, and the process leading up to the dismissal was flawed. Consequently, the court ordered Hall Chadwick to pay Le Page compensation for the unfair dismissal.

Nicole Le Page v Hall Chadwick

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established