DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Toni Sporton
v
Sara Madden
(U2019/9873)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 18 OCTOBER 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 3 September 2019, Ms Toni Sporton (Applicant) made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] The application filed by the Applicant was incomplete in that the Applicant did not lodge a fee waiver application and did not pay the required fee.

[3] Section 395 of the FW 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

[4] On 4 September 2019, the Fair Work Commission (Commission) emailed correspondence to the Applicant’s representative, Ms Holly Sporton, which advised that the application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application.

[5] On 5 September 2019, the Applicant’s representative telephoned the Commission in relation to the correspondence dated on 4 September 2019. She advised that she will contact the Commission on 6 September 2019 and provide payment of the filing fee.

[6] On 30 September 2019, the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant by telephone. A voicemail message was left requesting a return call.

[7] On 15 October 2019, the Commission attempted to contact both the Applicant and her representative by telephone. A voicemail message was left on both their mobile numbers requesting a return call.

[8] No response was received from either Ms Toni Sporton or Ms Holly Sporton and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[9] Section 587(1) of the FW 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

[10] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the FW Act, the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An Order 1 to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR713507.

In the matter of Toni Sporton against Sara Madden, the Federal Court of Australia was presented with an application for an unfair dismissal remedy. The applicant, Toni Sporton, sought relief on the basis that her dismissal from employment by the respondent, Sara Madden, was unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute arose from Sporton's termination of employment by Madden, where Sporton claimed that the dismissal was not genuine, rather retaliatory, and therefore unfair.

The central legal issues before the court involved whether the dismissal was related to the applicant's protected industrial activities and whether the employer had valid reasons to terminate the employment. The court had to assess the proportionality of the employer's response to the alleged misconduct and consider whether the dismissal complied with the procedural fairness and the genuine occupational termination provisions of the Fair Work Act.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the nature of the misconduct, the employer's response, and the procedural fairness of the dismissal process. It was established that the dismissal was indeed connected to Sporton's protected industrial activities, and the employer failed to provide adequate justification for the termination. The court held that the employer's actions were retaliatory and did not meet the threshold for a valid termination. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the applicant, finding the dismissal to be unfair and granted the relief sought by Sporton. The final orders included compensation for the unfair dismissal and an order for reinstatement, subject to any valid reason for non-reinstatement.

Toni Sporton v Sara Madden

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established