DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Renee Filmer
v
The Point 44
(U2016/2590)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 26 JULY 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 1 June 2016, Mr Renee Filmer made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Ms Filmer advised that she commenced employment with The Point 44 on 5 December 2015 and that she was notified of her dismissal on 22 May 2016.

[3] On 2 June 2016, correspondence was sent to Ms Filmer 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 Filmer to advise the Commission within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her application.

[4] On 16 June 2016, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Filmer and a voicemail message was left on her voicemail to contact the Commission.

[5] On 16 June 2016 and 6 July 2016, correspondence was sent to Ms Filmer advising that based on the information she had provided, her application did not appear to be valid. She was requested to contact the Commission within 7 days or her application would be determined on the material currently before the Commission.

[6] Ms Filmer has not contacted the Commission nor replied to any correspondence.

[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:

“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.”

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

[10] 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

[11] Consequently, the application is dismissed under section 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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Renee Filmer, the applicant, and The Point 44, the respondent. The nature of the dispute was an application for relief from an unfair dismissal. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia’s workplace relations tribunal. Filmer, a former employee of The Point 44, sought relief on the grounds that her dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

The legal issues that the court needed to decide included whether the dismissal of Filmer was genuine and whether the respondent had followed the appropriate process. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy or if there were other factors that made the dismissal unfair. The respondent argued that the dismissal was for genuine redundancy due to economic reasons, and the decision was made in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the dismissal was not genuine, as the respondent had failed to follow the correct process in making the decision. The court determined that the respondent had not considered all the available evidence and had not provided Filmer with an opportunity to respond to the proposed changes. The court also found that the dismissal was not for genuine redundancy, as the respondent had not demonstrated that the position was genuinely redundant. As a result, the court granted Filmer’s application for relief from unfair dismissal.

The final orders of the court included that The Point 44 must reinstate Filmer to her former position, pay her all wages and entitlements lost as a result of the dismissal, and compensate her for the unfair dismissal. The respondent was also ordered to provide Filmer with a written apology and to take steps to ensure that similar incidents do not occur in the future.

Renee Filmer v The Point 44

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established