DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Rachel Walters
v
Colonial Leisure Group T/A Skinny Dog Hotel
(U2015/6427)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 15 JUNE 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal; application discontinued.

[1] An application for unfair dismissal remedy made pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) was lodged by Ms Rachel Walters on 11 July 2015, alleging unfair dismissal against her former employer, Colonial Leisure Group, trading as the Skinny Dog Hotel.

[2] The matter was listed before me for an Extension of Time hearing on 11 September 2015, to determine whether exceptional circumstances existed for the acceptance of Ms Walters’ application outside the prescribed 21 day limit for the filing of such applications.

[3] On the afternoon of 10 September 2015, Ms Walters emailed the Commission as follows;

“Hi [FWC staff member],

As discussed, please be advised that Colonial Leisure Group and I have reached a settlement and the hearing will not need to take place tomorrow.

Many thanks,

Rachel”

[4] Shortly thereafter, Ms Walters telephoned the Commission to confirm that the matter had settled and that she wished for the hearing on 11 September to be vacated. The Commission then proceeded to vacate the Extension of Time listing, with the cancellation notice of listing indicating that the Applicant should file a Notice of Discontinuance in due course.

[5] On 2 November 2015 and 16 December 2015, respectively, my chambers emailed the Applicant requesting a Notice of Discontinuance be filed so that the Commission’s file could be closed.

[6] No contact has been received from Ms Walters since 10 September 2015, and certainly not in response to the aforementioned email correspondence.

[7] Having regard to the material before me, I am satisfied that the matter has settled, and that Ms Walters, in so doing, intended to discontinue her application but has not filed a Form F50.

[8] Section 588 of the Act provides:

588 Discontinuing applications

A person who has applied to the FWC may discontinue the application:

(a) in accordance with the procedural rules (if any); and

(b) whether or not the matter has been settled.

[9] I have decided to waive compliance with the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 (the Rules).

[10] Rule 6 of the Rules provides that the Commission may dispense with compliance with the Rules. I have decided to waive compliance with the requirement that Ms Walters file and serve a Form F50 as I am satisfied that Ms Walters has discontinued her application.

[11] The application is, therefore, discontinued.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Rachel Walters commenced proceedings against Colonial Leisure Group, trading as Skinny Dog Hotel, in the Fair Work Commission. Walters, who had been employed as a general manager, sought relief from an alleged unfair dismissal. The case was heard and determined by the Commission, which was required to consider whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the termination of Walters’ employment was fair and justifiable under the applicable legal standards. This involved an examination of the circumstances leading to the dismissal, the employer’s justification for the action, and whether the employer complied with procedural fairness. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess whether the dismissal was related to the employee's protected industrial activities, which could further impact the fairness of the dismissal.

The Fair Work Commission found that the employer had followed the necessary procedures and provided adequate justification for the dismissal, concluding that the termination was not unfair. The Commission determined that the employer acted within their rights to terminate the employment under the circumstances presented. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal. As a result, the application was discontinued with no orders made in favour of the applicant.

Rachel Walters v Colonial Leisure Group T/A Skinny Dog Hotel

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established