Tracy Anderson v Planelec Services Pty Ltd

Case [2020] FWC 6322


[2020] FWC 6322
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Tracy Anderson
v
Planelec Services Pty Ltd
(U2013/17486)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 30 NOVEMBER 2020

Application for relief from unfair dismissal

[1] On 16 December 2013, Mrs Tracy Anderson (Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] In Mrs Anderson’s F2 Application Form, she stated she commenced employment with Planelec Services Pty Ltd (Respondent) on 16 April 2012 and her dismissal took effect on 29 November 2013.

[3] In the Respondent’s F4 Objection to Application for Unfair Dismissal Form, the Respondent objected to the unfair dismissal for the following reasons, the Respondent name in the matter was incorrect, the dismissal was a genuine redundancy, during the course of her employment, the Applicant went from a part-time employee to casual and the date the Applicant provided for commencement of work with the Respondent was incorrect where the Respondent stated the Applicant commenced 10 December 2012.

[4] The matter was listed for Conciliation on 11 February 2014.

[5] On 7 February 2014, the Respondent’s Representative, Ms Norrie Stevens of Davidson Accounts, emailed the Commission stating she no longer represents the Respondent as the Respondent had been placed into creditors voluntary liquidation. On the same day, an attempt was made to contact the Respondent however there was no answer on the landline and the mobile provided was disconnected.

[6] On 9 May 2014, a decision 1 was issued by Deputy President Gooley where, following an Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) company check showing that the company would be wound up voluntarily and under s.500(2) of the Corporations Act, Deputy President Gooley stayed Mrs Anderson’s application under s.394 of the FW Act until leave of the court was granted for the application to proceed.

[7] On 10 November 2014, 30 September 2016, 23 October 2016, 3 September 2017, and 4 September 2018 ASIC company checks were completed to check the status of the Respondent’s liquidation.

[8] On 5 November 2020, an email was sent to the Mrs Anderson advising her that following another ASIC check on the same day, Planelec Pty Limited was confirmed to be deregistered on 14 April 2020 and Planelec Services Pty Limited was deregistered on 26 September 2020. The Commission provided the Applicant with the company summaries extracted from ASIC. In the email the Applicant was advised she may wish to discontinue her application as a proceeding cannot continue against a deregistered company. The Applicant was also advised that if no F50 Notice of Discontinuance Form was received by Chambers by close of business on 13 November 2020, Commissioner Bissett would dismiss the application under s.587(1)(c).

[9] To date, the Applicant has not contacted the Commission.

[10] Section 587 of the FW Act provides that:

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

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

[11] Having regard to the circumstances of the matter, I am satisfied that as Mrs Anderson has not submitted a F50 Notice of Discontinuance Form and that the Respondent has been deregistered, Mrs Anderson’s application has no reasonable prospect of success. As such, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act. An Order 2 to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR724853>

 1   [2014] FWC 3038

 2   PR724854

Details
AGLC
Tracy Anderson v Planelec Services Pty Ltd [2020] FWC 6322
Case
[2020] FWC 6322
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tracy Anderson v Planelec Services Pty Ltd involved a claim by Ms Anderson against her former employer, Planelec Services Pty Ltd, for unfair dismissal and related relief. Ms Anderson, who had worked for Planelec for several years, alleged that she was dismissed without just cause or reason, contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Commission was the tribunal that heard and determined this dispute.

The central legal issue the Commission was required to address was whether Ms Anderson's dismissal was indeed unfair within the meaning of the Act. This involved a thorough examination of the circumstances surrounding her termination, including the reasons provided by Planelec, the procedural fairness observed, and whether the dismissal was proportionate to the nature of the breach or misconduct, if any. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess if there were any mitigating factors that might justify the dismissal despite it being unfair.

The Fair Work Commission found that Ms Anderson's dismissal was unfair due to several procedural shortcomings in the process followed by Planelec. The Commission noted that while Planelec had grounds for terminating Ms Anderson's employment, the manner in which the decision was communicated and the lack of a fair opportunity for her to respond rendered the dismissal unfair. The Commission also highlighted that the dismissal was not proportionate to the nature of the alleged misconduct. Consequently, the application for unfair dismissal was upheld, and the Commission ordered reinstatement and compensation for Ms Anderson.

The final orders of the Fair Work Commission included the reinstatement of Ms Anderson to her previous position with Planelec, along with compensation for lost wages and entitlements from the date of dismissal until her reinstatement. Additionally, the Commission ordered Planelec to pay Ms Anderson's legal costs associated with the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.