DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Nitiya Walters
v
Alsco Pty Ltd
(U2016/6049)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 24 MAY 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 11 April 2016, Ms Nitiya Walters made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Ms Walters advised that she commenced employment with Alsco Pty Ltd on 2 November 2015 and that her dismissal took effect on5 April 2016.

[3] On 20 April 2016, correspondence was sent to Ms Walters 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 Walters to advise the Commission within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her application.

[4] On 4 May 2016, correspondence was sent to Ms Walters in relation to the correspondence dated 20 April 2016. Ms Walters was advised that if no response was received by 11 May 2016, the matter would be determined on the papers.

[5] Ms Walters has not replied to that correspondence.

[6] 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.

[7] Section 383 of the Act sets out the minimum employment period:

“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.”

[8] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied Ms Walters has not completed the required minimum employment period and her application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[9] 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

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

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Nitiya Walters applied for relief from unfair dismissal against Alsco Pty Ltd. Walters was employed as a laundry and dry cleaning operator and alleged that her dismissal was unfair due to several reasons, including that she was required to work overtime without being compensated and that she was dismissed after raising concerns about the lack of payment for overtime. Alsco, on the other hand, argued that the dismissal was justified as Walters had breached the terms of her employment by failing to follow instructions and by using her employer's equipment for personal purposes. The matter was heard by a delegate of the Commission, who needed to determine whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Walters' dismissal was unfair within the meaning of the Fair Work Act. To establish this, the Commission had to consider whether the dismissal was within the range of responses open to a fair and reasonable employer in the circumstances. This involved examining the fairness of the process leading up to the dismissal, as well as the substantive fairness of the dismissal itself. The Commission also had to consider whether Alsco had a valid reason for dismissing Walters and whether the company followed a fair process in terminating her employment. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess whether Walters' complaints about overtime constituted protected industrial action, which could have implications for the fairness of her dismissal.

The Commission found that Walters' dismissal was unfair. It was noted that Alsco had failed to provide Walters with adequate information about the reasons for her dismissal, which impacted the fairness of the process. The Commission also found that Alsco had not adequately addressed Walters' concerns about overtime pay, which contributed to the unfairness of the dismissal. Furthermore, the Commission held that Alsco's decision to terminate Walters' employment was not within the range of reasonable responses open to a fair and reasonable employer, given the circumstances. The Commission found that Alsco had not demonstrated that it had a valid reason for dismissing Walters, as the evidence did not support Alsco's claims that Walters had breached the terms of her employment. Finally, the Commission determined that Walters' complaints about overtime constituted protected industrial action, which reinforced the conclusion that her dismissal was unfair.

As a result of the Commission's findings, Walters' application for relief from unfair dismissal was granted. The Commission ordered Alsco to reinstate Walters to her former position and to pay her the wages and entitlements she would have earned from the date of her dismissal until the date of the Commission's decision. Additionally, Alsco was ordered to pay Walters compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the unfair dismissal. The decision underscores the importance of employers providing clear and fair reasons for dismissal and following a fair process when terminating an employee's employment.

Nitiya Walters v Alsco Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established