Patricia Utai v Melton City Council

[2024] FWC 3506

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.65B - Application for a dispute about requests for flexible work arrangements

Patricia Utai
v

Melton City Council

(C2024/6387)

COMMISSIONER MIRABELLA

MELBOURNE, 16 DECEMBER 2024

Application to deal with a dispute about the right to request a flexible working arrangement

On 11 September 2024, Ms Utai made an application (Application) to resolve a dispute with the Melton City Council about a flexible working arrangement under s 65B of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

Ms Utai was dismissed by the Melton City Council on 2 December 2024.

Section 65B applies to a dispute between an employer and an employee. The consequence of termination is that Ms Utai is no longer an employee of the Melton City Council. There is no employment for which a flexible working arrangement can be requested. Accordingly, the Commission could not make orders in this matter and for that reason Ms. Utai’s Application has no reasonable prospect of success.[1]

In the circumstances the appropriate course is to dismiss the application under section 587(1)(c) of the Act.

The application is dismissed.

COMMISSIONER

[1] Shaw v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited & Anor [2024] FWC 3408.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Patricia Utai filed an application against the Melton City Council under section 65B of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking to resolve a dispute regarding a request for a flexible working arrangement. Ms Utai was dismissed by the Melton City Council on 2 December 2024, which meant that she was no longer an employee at the time of the application. The primary issue before the Fair Work Commission was whether Ms Utai could still seek to resolve a dispute about a flexible working arrangement despite her termination of employment.

The Commission found that since Ms Utai was no longer an employee of the Melton City Council, she could not validly make a request for a flexible working arrangement under section 65B of the Act. The dismissal rendered the application moot, as there was no existing employment to which a flexible working arrangement could apply. The Commission also noted that Ms Utai's application had no reasonable prospect of success due to her termination, which effectively ended any potential for a flexible working arrangement to be considered. The appropriate action was to dismiss the application under section 587(1)(c) of the Act.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission dismissed the application as it was unable to make any orders due to the termination of Ms Utai’s employment. The dismissal was based on the premise that a terminated employee could not pursue a dispute about a flexible working arrangement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established