DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Stacey Lenthall
v
X Ponential Philanthropy
(U2016/11565)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 8 DECEMBER 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 20 September 2016, Ms Stacey Lenthall made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act)

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

[3] On 21 September 2016, an attempt was made to contact Ms Lenthall by telephone but with contact not having been made, she was advised by email correspondence that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application.

[4] Section 395 of the Act, 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

(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.

[5] On 24 October 2016, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) attempted to contact Ms Lenthall by telephone in relation to the correspondence dated 21 September 2016. There was no answer and a voicemail message was left. Ms Lenthall did not call back.

[6] A further unsuccessful attempt to contact Ms Lenthall by telephone was made on 16 November 2016 and it was followed up with another letter advising if she did not advise the Commission that she intended to proceed with her application within 14 days, it would be dismissed. A final attempt to contact Ms Lenthall by telephone was made on 29 November 2016. No responses were received from Ms Lenthall and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[7] 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

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

[8] 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

In the case of Stacey Lenthall v X Ponential Philanthropy, the applicant, Stacey Lenthall, sought relief from an unfair dismissal. The dispute arose when Lenthall was dismissed from her employment by the respondent, X Ponential Philanthropy. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the dismissal of Stacey Lenthall was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. This involved examining whether the dismissal complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court considered the nature and circumstances of the dismissal, the reason for the termination, and whether there was a valid and proper reason for the dismissal. The respondent argued that the dismissal was justified due to serious allegations of misconduct against Lenthall. However, Lenthall contended that the dismissal was unjust and that there were procedural flaws in the termination process. The court had to weigh these arguments and determine whether the dismissal met the threshold for being considered unfair.

The Fair Work Commission found that while the allegations of misconduct were serious, the process leading to the dismissal was flawed. Specifically, the court noted that Lenthall was not provided with adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations, which compromised the fairness of the process. Consequently, the court ruled that the dismissal was unjust and ordered that Stacey Lenthall be reinstated to her former position. Additionally, the court awarded compensation for the loss of earnings and other related losses incurred as a result of the unfair dismissal.

Stacey Lenthall v X Ponential Philanthropy

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established