DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Stacy Porter
v
Macrossan and Amiet Pty Ltd T/A Macrossan and Amiet
(U2017/243)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 2 JUNE 2017

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] Ms Stacy Porter was employed by Macrossan and Amiet Pty Ltd T/A Macrossan and Amiet (Macrossan and Amiet) until she was notified of her dismissal on 8 December 2016, with immediate effect.

[2] On 9 January 2017 Ms Porter lodged an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). Given that Ms Porter’s dismissal took effect on 8 December 2016, her application was made some 11 days outside the 21 day period prescribed by s.394(2) of the Act.

[3] The application was listed on two separate occasions for conciliation. Ms Porter failed to attend on each occasion.

[4] On 4 April 2017 the Commission wrote to Ms Porter indicating that her application had been filed outside the 21 day time period and she would need to seek an extension of time if she wished to proceed. The correspondence from the Commission outlined the matters the Commission must take into account of in determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ existed to extend time. Ms Porter was asked to respond within 14 days. She did not do so.

[5] The Commission wrote again to Ms Porter on 9 May 2017 seeking a reply to the earlier correspondence. Ms Porter provided a response which did not address any of the matters outlined in the correspondence.

[6] The application was listed for hearing by telephone on 2 June 2017 to determine whether an extension of time should be granted to Ms Porter. At the commencement of the hearing, Ms Porter advised that she did not wish to proceed with her application.

[7] Mr Naylor, Managing Director of Macrossan and Amiet, made an application to dismiss Ms Porter’s application pursuant to s399A of the Act. I am satisfied in all the circumstances that Ms Porter does not wish to proceed and the application should be dismissed.

[8] An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

S Naylor for Macrossan and Amiet Pty Ltd T/A Macrossan and Amiet.

Hearing details:

2017.

Sydney (by telephone):

June 2.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stacy Porter, the applicant, sought relief from an unfair dismissal from Macrossan and Amiet Pty Ltd, trading as Macrossan and Amiet, the respondent. The applicant, a former employee, lodged the application in the Fair Work Commission, which was tasked with determining the merits of the dismissal and whether it was unfair. The core of the dispute centred on the procedural fairness of the dismissal process, the adequacy of the reasons provided, and whether the dismissal was proportionate to the alleged misconduct.

The primary legal issues that the Commission had to resolve were whether the dismissal was justified under the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically section 383, and whether the respondent had followed proper procedures in terminating the employment. Additionally, the Commission examined whether the dismissal was procedurally fair, taking into account the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing. The applicant argued that the reasons provided for the dismissal were insufficient and did not adequately justify the severity of the action taken.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the respondent had failed to demonstrate that the dismissal was justified. The Commission held that the procedural steps taken were inadequate, as the respondent did not provide the applicant with a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. The reasons given for the dismissal were also deemed insufficient and did not meet the required standard of fairness. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the dismissal was unfair. The Commission ordered the respondent to reinstate the applicant to her former position and award her compensation for the period of wrongful dismissal.

Stacy Porter v Macrossan and Amiet Pty Ltd T/A Macrossan and Amiet

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established