Skye Parsons v Truscaff Scaffolding Pty Ltd Summary

[2013] FWC 5680

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Skye Parsons
v
Truscaff Scaffolding Pty Ltd
(U2013/7208)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 13 AUGUST 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal dismissed pursuant to s.399A of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[1] On 5 March 2013, an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for remedy from unfair dismissal was lodged by Ms Skye Parsons (the Applicant). The Applicant’s employment had been terminated by Truscaff Scaffolding Pty Ltd (the Respondent) on 4 March 2013.

[2] The matter was the subject of conciliation however, the matter was not resolved. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] The Applicant was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material she wished to rely on by noon, 3 June 2013.

[4] The Applicant made two requests for an extension to file her submissions. Further periods of time were permitted and the Applicant was subsequently directed to file her material by 17 June 2013 and subsequently 8 July 2013.

[5] The Applicant failed to comply with this direction and the matter was subsequently listed for a non compliance hearing before me on 12 July 2013.

[6] The Applicant failed to attend the non compliance hearing. The Respondent made an application, pursuant to s.399A of the Act, that the matter be dismissed as the Applicant had failed to comply with the direction of the Commission. I waived compliance with the Fair Work Rules 2009 and accepted the Respondent’s oral application.

[7] On 12 July 2013, the Applicant was sent correspondence information her of the Respondent’s s.399A application. The Applicant was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of the Respondent’s application by close of business, 26 July 2013. The Applicant was advised that if she failed to comply with this direction, their application would be dismissed.

[8] The Applicant did not file any material with the Commission.

[9] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

(c) failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded.

Note 1: For another power of the FWC to dismiss applications for orders under Division 4, see section 587.

Note 2: The FWC may make an order for costs if the applicant’s failure causes the other party to the matter to incur costs (see section 400A).

(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.

[10] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[11] As the Applicant did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I have decided to determine the application on the papers.

[12] After considering all the material, I have decided to dismiss the Applicant’s application for remedy from unfair dismissal. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the matter of Skye Parsons versus Truscaff Scaffolding Pty Ltd, the Federal Circuit and Family Court was tasked with deciding an application for relief from unfair dismissal. Skye Parsons, the applicant, sought relief from an earlier dismissal by her employer, Truscaff Scaffolding Pty Ltd. The employer contended that the dismissal was fair and within the parameters of the Fair Work Act 2009. The central legal issues before the Court were whether the dismissal was procedurally fair and whether it was based on valid reasons. The applicant argued that the process leading to her dismissal was flawed and that the reasons given were unjust. The employer, on the other hand, maintained that the dismissal was handled in accordance with the company's policies and was justified by the applicant's conduct.

The Court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that the employer had followed the appropriate procedures in dismissing the applicant, including providing her with an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. The Court also considered the reasons for the dismissal, which related to the applicant's conduct and performance issues. It was determined that the employer had valid reasons to dismiss the applicant, and the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal, finding that the dismissal was fair under the Fair Work Act. No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the application.

Skye Parsons v Truscaff Scaffolding Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established