Tarnya Treneman v The Trustee for the Salvation Army (Vic) Social Work Ta Salvos Stores

[2014] FWC 6016

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Tarnya Treneman
v
The Trustee for the Salvation Army (VIC) Social Work TA Salvos Stores
(U2014/6828)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 2 SEPTEMBER 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 24 April 2014, Mrs Tarnya Treneman made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Mrs Treneman’s employment had been terminated by The Trustee for the Salvation Army (VIC) Social Work TA Salvos Stores (Salvos) on 9 April 2014.

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 10 June 2014 however it could not take place. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] Mrs Treneman was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material she wished to rely on by noon, on 30 June 2014.

[4] Mrs Treneman requested an extension to file her submissions. A further period of time was granted and Mrs Treneman was required to file her material by 11 July 2014.

[5] Mrs Treneman did not comply with this direction and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before Commissioner Wilson on 18 July 2014.

[6] On 8 August 2014, Salvos filed an objection to the application and sought the dismissal of Mrs Treneman’s application. Salvos based their objection on grounds which include:

(a) failure to comply with directions; and

(b) failure to attend the non compliance hearing.

[7] On 13 August 2014, Mrs Treneman was sent correspondence informing her of the Salvo’s s.399A application. Mrs Treneman was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of Salvo’s application by close of business, on 20 August 2014. Mrs Treneman was advised that if she failed to comply with this direction, her application would be dismissed.

[8] Mrs Treneman did not file any material with the Commission.

[9] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

(c) failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded.

....

(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.

[10] I am satisfied that Salvo’s objection filed on 8 August 2014 is an application to have the matter dismissed for Mrs Treneman’s failure to comply with a direction and failure to attend the non compliance hearing.

[11] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[12] As Mrs Treneman did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I will determine the application on the papers.

[13] After considering all the material, Mrs Treneman’s application for remedy from unfair dismissal is dismissed. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the matter of Tarnya Treneman versus The Trustee for the Salvation Army (Vic) Social Work Ta Salvos Stores, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with addressing an application for relief from unfair dismissal. Treneman, an employee of Ta Salvos Stores, alleged that her dismissal was unjust and sought to have it overturned. The Salvation Army, as the employer, argued that the dismissal was justified and necessary under the circumstances.

The central legal issues before the Commission involved whether the employer had valid grounds for dismissal, whether the dismissal process complied with the applicable employment standards, and whether Treneman's dismissal constituted an unfair act under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to consider whether the employer acted reasonably and fairly, if the dismissal was a proportionate response to Treneman's conduct, and whether there were any mitigating factors that should be taken into account.

Upon examining the evidence and submissions, the Commission found that the employer had legitimate reasons for Treneman's dismissal, primarily based on her conduct and performance issues. The employer demonstrated that Treneman's actions warranted disciplinary action, and the dismissal was a proportionate response to the severity of her misconduct. Additionally, the Commission noted that the employer had followed proper procedural steps, including providing Treneman with warnings and opportunities to improve her performance. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the dismissal was fair and reasonable, and the application for relief was dismissed.

The Commission ruled that the dismissal was justified and that Treneman's application for relief from unfair dismissal was unsuccessful. The decision underscored the importance of employers following fair and reasonable procedures in disciplinary matters, while also affirming the employer's right to take necessary action in response to employee misconduct.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established