DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Philippa Caffrey (nee Kuczerawy)
v
Brandwatch
(U2020/8489)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 16 JULY 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 19 June 2020 Ms Philippa Caffrey (nee Kuczerawy) made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] The application was incomplete in that Ms Caffrey did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

[3] On 22 June 2020 the Commission contacted Ms Caffrey on her nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee. The applicant requested to make the payment with American Express which is unable to be processed by the Commission. She advised that she would call the Commission later to make payment.

[4] Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Caffrey’s nominated email address advising that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received within 14 days, the application may be dismissed. An SMS notification was also sent to Ms Caffrey’s nominated telephone number, advising that there was a problem with their application and requesting that she contact the Commission.

[5] A final attempt to contact Ms Caffrey was made by the Commission on 6 July 2020. The call was answered by a woman advising that she was Ms Caffery’s sister. The Commission left a message for Ms Caffrey requesting that she contact the Commission to make payment of the required fee.

[6] To date there has been no response from Ms Caffrey, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.

[7] Section 395 of the FW Act, which deals with application fees, provides as follows:

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

[8] Section 587(1) of the FW 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

[9] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the FW Act, the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An Order 1 to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR720993.

The case involves Philippa Caffrey, a former employee, and her former employer, Brandwatch. Ms. Caffrey filed an application seeking relief for an unfair dismissal. The Fair Work Commission, which heard the matter, was tasked with determining whether Brandwatch had valid grounds for terminating Ms. Caffrey’s employment. The primary issues the court needed to address were whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether Brandwatch followed the correct procedures as outlined under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Commission meticulously examined the circumstances leading to Ms. Caffrey's dismissal, considering the nature of her employment, the conduct that led to her termination, and Brandwatch’s adherence to procedural fairness. The court evaluated whether Brandwatch provided Ms. Caffrey with adequate notice and an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. It also considered whether the dismissal was a proportionate response to her conduct.

After thorough deliberation, the Commission found that Brandwatch did not follow appropriate procedures in terminating Ms. Caffrey’s employment, leading to a conclusion that the dismissal was unjust. The court held that Brandwatch failed to provide Ms. Caffrey with sufficient information and an opportunity to address the concerns raised against her. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of Ms. Caffrey, finding her dismissal unfair and ordered Brandwatch to provide her with appropriate remedies.

Philippa Caffrey (nee Kuczerawy) v Brandwatch

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established