Benchmark WA Industrial Relations Case Database

Munnerley, Sharyn v Greg Geddes & Associates Pty Ltd

Fair Work Commission 2004-05-26
Source
Commissioner Smith
Not yet cited by other cases
Applicant: Munnerley, Sharyn
Respondent: Greg Geddes & Associates Pty Ltd
This case hasn't been analysed yet.
Generate ratio, outcome, key facts, concept tags and cited-case edges. Takes ~15–30 seconds.
Sign in to analyse

Authority signal

Not yet cited by other cases Signal-weighted score: 0.0
Derived from how later decisions have treated this case. Dark green = leading authority, green = positively treated, grey = neutral or sparse data, amber = caution, red = treated negatively.

Concept tags · 7

[P]Casual employee definition (s15A) [P]Jurisdictional objection [S]Unfair dismissal (WA) [S]Unfair dismissal (federal) [S]Dismissal during probation (WA) [S]Dismissal during minimum employment period [S]Probationary employee
Archived text (316 words)
PR947146 PR947146 Download Word Document AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Workplace Relations Act 1996 s.170CE application for relief in respect of termination of employment Sharyn Munnerley and Greg Geddes & Associates Pty Ltd (U2003/6590) COMMISSIONER SMITH MELBOURNE, 26 MAY 2004 Termination of employment. EX TEMPORE DECISION [1] The following decision, now edited, was issued during proceedings conducted on 19 May 2004. [2] Ms Sharyn Munnerley seeks relief pursuant to section 170CE of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 ("the Act") in relation to what she submits was her termination of employment by Greg Geddes and Associates Pty Limited. Pursuant to s.170CE A of the Act, Greg Geddes and Associates move for the dismissal in the matter for three reasons: 1. Ms Munnerley had not completed the qualifying period of employment; 2. Ms Munnerley was serving a probationary period; and 3. Ms Munnerley resigned. [3] Both parties were unrepresented and efforts have been made to accommodate their needs in terms of sitting dates and places. To begin, I sought to have the matter progressed by way of written submissions. Unfortunately, because the written submissions were so different as to the alleged facts, a further hearing was set to enable oral evidence to be given. Ms Munnerley has not appeared at either hearing. Mr Geddes gave evidence this morning. His evidence was that Ms Munnerley resigned on the phone to him; that Ms Munnerley was a casual employee; and that Ms Munnerley was employed for a period of less than three months. [4] Ms Munnerley's application itself indicates that she was employed for a period of less than three months. Given the circumstances I accept the evidence of Mr Geddes. It follows that I find that there is no jurisdiction for this matter to proceed within the Commission. ORDER [5] The application is struck out. BY THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONER Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <Price code A>