Van Lierop v Royals Hairdesign Pty Ltd
[2012] FMCA 580
•18 June 2012
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| VAN LIEROP v ROYALS HAIRDESIGN PTY LTD | [2012] FMCA 580 |
| INDUSTRIAL LAW – Small claim – compensation for dismissal – payment of entitlements. |
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s.545(2)(a)
| Applicant: | JENNIFER VAN LIEROP |
| Respondent: | ROYALS HAIRDESIGN PTY LTD |
| File Number: | SYG 407 of 2012 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 18 June 2012 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 25 June 2012 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 18 June 2012 |
REPRESENTATION
| For the Applicant: | In person |
| For the Respondent: | In person |
ORDERS
Respondent to pay the Applicant the sum of $2,199.00 plus $82.20 court costs and travel fees.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 407 of 2012
| JENNIFER VAN LIEROP |
Applicant
And
| ROYALS HAIRDESIGN PTY LTD |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this application under the court’s small claims jurisdiction the applicant seeks payment of approximately 13 weeks’ wages from her former employer following her dismissal because, she says, she was unable to obtain employment during that period and she was unable to obtain Centrelink benefits.
I am satisfied from the evidence of the applicant that her dismissal was brought about as a result of her complaints to Fair Work Australia and was unlawful. She would be entitled to some compensation over and above the notice payment that has been agreed to be paid. The Respondent submits this is not within jurisdiction, but it appears to have failed to read s.545(2)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The applicant is a person affected by the contravention. But the usual rules about establishing loss and mitigation apply. Here, the applicant enrolled in a TAFE course on 30 January 2012. The course ran at hours that made it impossible for her to take up full time employment in a salon. She applied for part time employment but even that was affected by the requirement to attend classes on Thursday evenings. As soon as the course concluded she obtained a position. The evidence is that the applicant is an excellent hairdresser, popular and a good salesperson. I believe that had she decided to seek full time employment after her dismissal she would have found it. In those circumstances I would award her a further $1,000.00 compensation for loss of employment in addition to the sums set out below.
I make the following awards. I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $246.00 representing loading on holiday pay unpaid. I order that the respondent pay the applicant $703.00 in respect of wages in lieu of notice which were not paid, and I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $250.00 representing a compromise on an allegation in relation to a prize that the applicant says that she won. So I order that the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $2,199.00, such payment to be made within 28 days, less appropriate tax, and paid together with a payslip which indicates the amount of tax deducted. I also order that the respondent pay the applicant $82.20 court costs and travel fees.
I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Date: 3 July 2012
0
0
0