Snezana Zlatar v FGMC Pty Ltd T/A Lagoon Medical Centre

Case [2022] FWC 1432


[2022] FWC 1432

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Snezana Zlatar
v

FGMC Pty Ltd T/A Lagoon Medical Centre

(U2022/76)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 7 JUNE 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

  1. This matter involves an application made by Ms Snezana Zlatar (the Applicant) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. The respondent is FGMC Pty Ltd T/A Lagoon Medical Centre (the Respondent).

  1. Correspondence was sent to the parties on 27 April 2022 with specific directions to each party. This was sent to the Applicant by email. The Applicant was directed to provide written materials in support of the application by 30 May 2022. Nothing was received from the Applicant by this date.

  1. A follow up letter was emailed to the Applicant on 1 June 2022 regarding the failure to comply with the Commission’s direction and directing that the materials be filed and served by 4:00 p.m. on 6 June 2022. The letter advised a further failure to comply with the Commission’s direction would be grounds for the application to be dismissed without further notice.

  1. As at the date of this decision the Applicant has not filed any materials as directed nor otherwise contacted the Commission.

The legislation

  1. Section 577 of the Act obliges the Commission to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is fair, just and is quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities and is open and transparent and promotes harmonious and cooperative workplace relations.

  1. Further section 578 of the Act relevantly requires that in performing functions or exercising powers in relation to a matter the Commission must take into account the objects of the relevant Part of the Act.

  1. A section 394 application falls under Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal of the Act.

  1. The Objects of Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal are prescribed in section 381 of the Act. These Objects include the establishment of procedures dealing with unfair dismissal that are quick, flexible and informal and address the needs of employers and employees and involve procedures and remedies that ensure a “fair go all around” is accorded to both the employer and employee concerned.

  1. Section 587 (3) of the Act empowers the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative.

Decision

  1. In this case the Applicant has failed to comply with the Commission’s directions and was on notice that non-compliance would be grounds for the application to be dismissed.

  1. The Applicant in the circumstances here has been given a fair go.

  1. The Respondent is also entitled to a fair go including having the claim made against them determined within a reasonable time.

  1. Consequently, my decision is that this application for an unfair dismissal remedy should now be dismissed on the initiative of the Commission under section 587 (3) of the Act.

  1. An Order [PR742402] to this effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR742401>

Details
AGLC
Snezana Zlatar v FGMC Pty Ltd T/A Lagoon Medical Centre [2022] FWC 1432
Case
[2022] FWC 1432
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Snezana Zlatar applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for an unfair dismissal remedy against FGMC Pty Ltd T/A Lagoon Medical Centre. The Commission was required to determine whether the dismissal was unfair, and if so, to what extent a remedy should be granted. The Commission needed to consider whether the dismissal was justified and whether the procedural fairness was upheld.

The key legal issue in this case was whether the Commission should proceed with the application given the Applicant's failure to comply with the Commission's directions. The Commission was mandated to consider the procedural fairness and the efficiency of the proceedings under section 577 of the Act. Additionally, section 587(3) of the Act allowed the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative if the Applicant failed to comply with the Commission's directions.

The Commission found that the Applicant had failed to comply with the directions provided, despite being explicitly warned that non-compliance would lead to the dismissal of the application. The Commission concluded that both the Applicant and the Respondent were entitled to procedural fairness and that the Respondent deserved to have the claim determined within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore, the Commission exercised its power under section 587(3) of the Act to dismiss the application on its own initiative.

An order was issued to dismiss the application for an unfair dismissal remedy as per the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.