A worker who said she was sacked because of a mental health condition had her case thrown out because she named the wrong company among a group of related businesses. The Full Bench found that was not a lawful reason to dismiss her claim and sent it back for a fresh hearing.
What the Commission decided
Vickie Hambrook took a job linked to a business called Atturra. She signed an employment agreement with one company in the group, Atturra Personnel Pty Ltd, but when she was sacked she filed her general protections claim against a different related company, Veritec Pty Ltd, along with two managers.
She argued her dismissal happened because of a manifestation of a mental health condition, which she said breached protections against dismissal for a disability under the Fair Work Act.
The company that responded to her claim argued it was never her employer and the application should be dismissed because she had sued the wrong entity. A Deputy President agreed, finding Ms Hambrook had been employed by Atturra Personnel Pty Ltd and that her application could not proceed without the real employer named as a respondent.
The Full Bench disagreed. It held that correctly identifying the employer in the application itself is not something a worker must get right before the Commission can even consider her claim.
The panel pointed to an earlier Full Bench decision which had already established that the law does not require an applicant to name their employer as a respondent for the application to be valid.
It noted that people other than the actual employer, such as those
What this means
This case is a reminder that dismissals linked to a worker's disability or mental health condition can be challenged as unlawful discrimination under the general protections provisions, even where procedural issues like naming the wrong respondent arise along the way. Workers considering a claim of this kind can read more about how these claims work at discrimination at work.