DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Stephanie Peters
v
Panthera Finance Pty Ltd
(U2019/9104)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 20 SEPTEMBER 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application dismissed.

[1] On 15 August 2019, Ms Stephanie Peters made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

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

[3] Section 395, 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

[4] On 16 August 2019, the Commission attempted to telephone Ms Peters to advise that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application. This attempt was unsuccessful and written correspondence was sent to Ms Peters and to her representative.

[5] On 27 August 2019, the Commission contacted Ms Peters’ representative in relation to the correspondence of 16 August 2019. The representative advised that Ms Peters would be making payment. The Commission made a further attempt to contact Ms Peters by telephone. This attempt was again unsuccessful.
[6] On 6 September 2019, another attempt was made to contact Ms Peters by telephone without success. The Commission then telephoned Ms Peters’ representative and advised that if payment is not made, the matter would be referred to Chambers. The representative advised that they would follow up with Ms Peters.

[7] No further response was received from Ms Peters or her representative and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[8] 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

[9] 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 that effect will be issued.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Final written submissions:

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stephanie Peters against Panthera Finance Pty Ltd was before the Fair Work Commission. The applicant, Ms Peters, sought a remedy for what she claimed was an unfair dismissal from her employment. Panthera Finance Pty Ltd, the respondent, contested the application, arguing that the dismissal was fair and justified under the Fair Work Act 2009. The commission was tasked with determining whether Ms Peters' dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether it complied with the applicable legal standards.

The primary legal issue before the commission was whether Ms Peters' dismissal was indeed unfair, given the circumstances surrounding her termination. The commission considered the fairness of the decision to dismiss, the process leading to the dismissal, and whether the respondent had valid reasons for terminating her employment. Additionally, the commission examined whether the dismissal complied with the procedural fairness principles and if the respondent adequately justified the dismissal on the grounds of misconduct.

In examining the evidence and submissions from both parties, the commission found that the respondent had followed the appropriate process and had substantial reasons to terminate Ms Peters' employment. The respondent provided evidence of Ms Peters' misconduct and demonstrated that it had considered the appropriate disciplinary actions before proceeding with the dismissal. The commission concluded that the dismissal was not unfair, harsh, or unreasonable, and therefore dismissed the application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

As a result of the commission's findings, the application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed. The decision affirmed the respondent's right to terminate Ms Peters' employment under the circumstances presented. The commission upheld the fairness of the dismissal process and the validity of the respondent's reasons for terminating the employment contract.

Stephanie Peters v Panthera Finance Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established