DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Simione Cagilaba
v
Sandy Boyd Aged Care Hostel (operated by Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council) T/A Sandy Boyd Aged Care Hostel
(U2016/6465)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 15 JUNE 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 26 April 2016, Mr Simione Cagilaba made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] On 27 April 2016, the Commission contacted Mr Cagilaba regarding his employment and enquired whether Sandy Boyd Aged Care Hostel was a national system employer. Mr Cagilaba was advised that employees who were not employed by a national system employer were ineligible to make an application for unfair dismissal remedy. He advised that he would seek advice and notify the Commission whether he wished to proceed. Written correspondence confirming this was sent to him. He was directed to advise the Commission within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application.

[3] On 11 May 2016, the Commission contacted Mr Cagilaba. He advised that he had been unable to obtain legal advice and wished to continue until he had been able to obtain this advice. Mr Cagilaba had also advised that he would send further correspondence to the Commission.

[4] The Commission sent correspondence to Mr Cagilaba on 11 May 2016 advising that based on the information provided, his application did not appear to be valid and in those circumstances the Commission may not have jurisdiction to deal with his application.

[5] Mr Cagilaba did not contact the Commission or provide any further information.

[6] The Commission investigated the matter further and found that a Fair Work (State Declaration) Endorsement, made on 18 December 2012, declared that Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council was not a national system employer. 1

[7] On 7 June 2016, I caused correspondence to be sent to Sandy Boyd and asked that it advise who Mr Cagilaba’s employer was. In response, Sandy Boyd confirmed that it employed Mr Cagilaba and that it was operated by Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council. As such, it said that Mr Cagilaba had made his application “in an incorrect jurisdiction”.

[8] Division 1 of Part 3-2 of the Act is concerned with the “unfair dismissal of national system employees, and the granting of remedies for unfair dismissal”. Further, s.380 of the Act provides that, under this Part, an “employee means a national system employee, and employer means a national system employer”. Mr Cagilaba and Sandy Boyd do not respectively fall within the scope of this definition.

[9] In considering the provisions of the Act, the advice from Sandy Boyd in addition to the State Declaration, I am satisfied that the Commission has no jurisdiction to determine Mr Cagilaba’s application for unfair dismissal as his employment was not with a national system employer.

[10] Section 587(1) of the Act provides as follows:

“(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
(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.”

[11] In this circumstance, I have determined that the application was not made in accordance with the Act.

[12] Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

1 by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case involves an application by Simione Cagilaba against Sandy Boyd Aged Care Hostel, operated by Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council, for relief from unfair dismissal. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. Cagilaba was dismissed from her employment with the Hostel. She subsequently lodged an application for relief from dismissal, arguing that it was unfair and that she should be reinstated or compensated.

The central legal issues that the Commission had to address were whether Cagilaba's dismissal was procedurally unfair and whether it was substantively unfair. Procedurally, the Commission considered whether Cagilaba was given adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations against her, and whether the decision-maker was impartial. Substantively, the Commission examined whether the dismissal was a reasonable management action in the circumstances.

In delivering its decision, the Commission held that the dismissal was procedurally unfair due to a failure to provide Cagilaba with the opportunity to respond to allegations of misconduct and a lack of procedural fairness in the decision-making process. The Commission found that the decision-maker had not been impartial and that Cagilaba was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. As for the substantive fairness, the Commission concluded that while the Hostel had a valid reason for the dismissal, it was not a reasonable action in the circumstances given the procedural failures. Consequently, the Commission ordered that Cagilaba be reinstated to her position and that she be paid compensation for the period of her absence.

Simione Cagilaba v Sandy Boyd Aged Care Hostel (operated by Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council) T/A Sandy Boyd Aged Care Hostel

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established