Ronel Smit v J.G. Goldner Pty. Ltd - [2025] FWC 67

[2025] FWC 67

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Ronel Smit
v

J.G. Goldner Pty. Ltd.

(U2024/8100)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ROBERTS

SYDNEY, 8 JANUARY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

Ms. Ronel Smit (Applicant) has applied to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a remedy for what she alleges was her unfair dismissal by her former employer J. G. Goldner Pty Ltd (Respondent).

When can the Commission order a remedy for unfair dismissal?

Section 390 of the Act provides that the Commission may order a person’s reinstatement, or the payment of compensation to a person if satisfied that the person was protected from unfair dismissal at the time of being dismissed and the person has been unfairly dismissed.

Section 382 provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if the person is an employee who has completed a period of employment of at least the minimum employment period and the person is covered by a modern award, an enterprise agreement applies to the person, or the person earns less than the high-income threshold. It was not contested, and I am satisfied, that the Applicant is protected from unfair dismissal for the purposes of s.382.

Section 385 relevantly provides that a person has been unfairly dismissed if the Commission is satisfied of four matters: the person has been dismissed, the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code (SBFDC) and the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.

There was no dispute that the Applicant has been dismissed by the Respondent. The Respondent was not a small business employer to which the SBFDC applied[1] and did not contend that the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy.

The Applicant was notified of her dismissal on 4 July 2024 and her dismissal took effect on that day. The application for relief was filed within the requisite time period.[2] No jurisdictional issues arise with the application. That being the case, the question of whether the Applicant has been unfairly dismissed will depend on whether the Commission is satisfied that the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable within the meaning of s.385.

Background

The Applicant commenced employment with the Respondent in January 2023 and worked as a senior accountant in the accounts section of the Respondent’s business from that time. The Applicant’s responsibilities included the processing of invoices and the preparation of the Respondent’s payroll.

The Respondent is in the business of horse transportation. Mr. Jennings is a director of the Respondent. His assistant is Ms Reardon.

The events which precipitated the termination of the Applicant’s employment occurred on 19 June 2024. On that day, there was an interaction by telephone between the Applicant and Ms. Reardon. The Applicant spoke with Ms. Reardon about a time sheet for one of the Respondent’s drivers that had not been approved by an operations manager. The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ronel Smit v J.G. Goldner Pty. Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FWC 67
Decision Date: 8 JANUARY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to decide if Ms. Ronel Smit was unfairly dismissed by her former employer, J.G. Goldner Pty Ltd. Ms. Smit alleged she was dismissed without just cause or excuse and applied to the Commission for relief under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The primary issue before the Deputy President was whether Ms. Smit had been unfairly dismissed. To answer this, the Deputy President had to consider if the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The Deputy President found that there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to Ms. Smit’s conduct, namely her refusal to contact a driver to confirm details in a time sheet. However, the Deputy President was not satisfied that Ms. Smit had been adequately notified of this reason or that she had been given a genuine opportunity to respond to it. The Deputy President also considered other factors relevant to whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. These included the degree of seriousness of the misconduct and whether the response of dismissal was proportionate to the conduct. The Deputy President concluded that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable and therefore unfair. The Deputy President ordered that the Respondent pay Ms. Smit compensation of $8,461.55 (gross) for the loss of her employment.

Orders