DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Robyn Stevenson
v
Pacific Holiday Village Pty Ltd T/A Stonelea Resort
(U2016/1653)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 2 JUNE 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 8 April 2016, Ms Robyn Stevenson made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Ms Stevenson did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 14 April 2016, Ms Stevenson and her representative were advised by telephone correspondence that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application. On the same date, the Fair Work Commission sent email correspondence attaching the waiver of application fee form for completion.

[4] Section 395, which deals with application fees, provides:

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

[5] On 27 April 2016, the Commission contacted Ms Stevenson in relation to the correspondence dated on 14 April 2016. Ms Stevenson advised she had emailed a completed waiver fee application form to the Commission. She advised she would re-send a completed form again via email later that afternoon.

[6] On 11 May 2016, Ms Stevenson was asked by telephone to provide the waiver application fee form. Ms Stevenson advised she would again email the completed form that afternoon.

[7] On 16 May 2016, the Commission made a further attempt to contact Ms Stevenson, the call was not answered and a voice message was left.

[8] No response has been received from Ms Stevenson and payment of the required fee has not been made.

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

Robyn Stevenson brought an application for relief from unfair dismissal against Pacific Holiday Village Pty Ltd trading as Stonelea Resort in the Fair Work Commission. Ms. Stevenson was dismissed from her position as a housekeeper at the resort. The central dispute was whether the dismissal was justified, and if not, whether the relief should include reinstatement or compensation. The Commission was tasked with determining the fairness of the dismissal in light of the employer’s conduct and the applicable laws.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the dismissal complied with the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically concerning procedural fairness and the existence of valid reasons for termination. It was critical to assess if the employer followed appropriate procedures and if the reasons for dismissal were genuine and not retaliatory or discriminatory. Additionally, the Commission needed to consider if the employer had a valid and sufficient reason for dismissing Ms. Stevenson, particularly given the context of her role and the circumstances surrounding her employment termination.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission examined the employer’s adherence to procedural fairness and the validity of the reasons provided for the dismissal. The Commission found that the employer had not followed proper procedures, as Ms. Stevenson was not given adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. Furthermore, the reasons for dismissal were not substantiated, and the employer's conduct suggested a retaliatory motive. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the dismissal was unfair and ordered that Ms. Stevenson be reinstated to her former position or, alternatively, compensated for the loss of employment.

Robyn Stevenson v Pacific Holiday Village Pty Ltd T/A Stonelea Resort

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established