DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Susanne Haines
v
North & West Remote Health T/A Central and North West Queensland Medicare Local
(U2014/12190)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 29 JUNE 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 2 September 2014, Ms Susanne Haines made an application for unfair dismissal remedy in relation to her dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] On 22 September 2014, North & West Remote Health T/A Central and North West Queensland Medicare Local (NWRH) filed their response to the application for unfair dismissal remedy.

[3] The matter was the subject of conciliation on 25 September 2014 however, the matter was not resolved. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing in January 2015.

[4] On 26 November 2014, Ms Haines’ representative advised the parties had reached an in principle agreement and requested the directions be vacated.

[5] On 4 March 2015, the Commission emailed Ms Haines’ representative chasing up a Notice of Discontinuance.

[6] On 5 March 2015, Ms Haines’ representative filed a F54 Notice easing to act for Ms Haines.

[7] On 27 March 2015, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Haines and a message was left asking her to contact the Commission.

[8] On 30 June 2015 and 7 April 2016, the Commission emailed Ms Haines requesting a Notice of Discontinuance be filed.

[9] On 20 June 2016, the Commission forwarded correspondence to Ms Haines as follows:

“On 26 November 2014 your representative advised that you had reached an in-principle agreement in relation to this matter and requested that the directions and hearing date be vacated.

On 5 March 2015 your representative ceased acting for you. You have not responded to two messages left for you by Commission staff, nor have you responded to emails sent to you.

Deputy President Gooley, Termination of Employment Panel Head, proposes to dismiss your application under s.587 of the Fair Work Act unless you provide a reasonable explanation of your failure to take any steps to prosecute your claim.

As such, you are directed to respond to this letter by no later than noon on Friday, 24 June 2016.

If you wish to discontinue the matter, you may do so by completing and returning a Form F50 - Notice of Discontinuance. A copy of the form is attached with this letter for your convenience.”

[10] Ms Haines has not replied to that correspondence.

[11] Section 587(1) of the Act provides as follows:

“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

[12] Ms Haines has taken no steps to prosecute her claim since 2014. Nor has she filed a Notice of Discontinuance. I have decided that it is appropriate to dismiss Ms Haines’ application under s.587(1) of the Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Susanne Haines versus North & West Remote Health T/A Central and North West Queensland Medicare Local, the primary dispute centred around the fairness of the dismissal of Susanne Haines from her position. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia's national workplace relations tribunal. Haines, the applicant, sought relief from her dismissal, arguing that it was unfair and should be set aside. The respondent, North & West Remote Health, contended that the dismissal was justified and conducted in accordance with the relevant employment laws.

The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the dismissal was procedurally fair, whether it was a case of genuine redundancy, and if the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The applicant argued that the process leading to her dismissal was flawed and that she was not given a genuine opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. Furthermore, she contended that the dismissal was not a case of redundancy as claimed by the employer, but rather a pretext for termination. The employer, on the other hand, maintained that the dismissal was handled in a procedurally fair manner, that there were valid reasons for the redundancy claim, and that the overall decision was reasonable in the circumstances.

The court considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It found that the procedural fairness was lacking as the applicant was not adequately informed of the reasons for the dismissal and was not given an opportunity to respond. Additionally, the court determined that the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy but rather an unjustifiable termination. Consequently, the dismissal was deemed harsh, unjust, and unreasonable. The court granted the application for relief from unfair dismissal, ordering that the dismissal be set aside and that Susanne Haines be reinstated to her former position. The court also directed the employer to compensate the applicant for the loss of earnings and other entitlements from the date of dismissal until the date of reinstatement.

Susanne Haines v North & West Remote Health T/A Central and North West Queensland Medicare Local

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established