the Applicant v Skye Children's Co-Operative Ltd
Citation: [2015] FCA 14
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant worked as an educator at a kindergarten operated by Skye Children's Co-Operative. In early 2014, staff concerns arose about her conduct with children. the Applicant and other staff contacted a union (United Voice) in March 2014 to discuss workplace management issues. the Applicant joined the union and the union exercised a right of entry at the centre. Around the same time, management received complaints about the Applicant's conduct. On 15 April 2014, the Applicant was dismissed without notice, allegedly for misconduct.
What was decided
The court dismissed the Applicant's application. Justice Jessup found that while the Applicant was a union member and the union had sought entry at the centre, the dismissal was genuinely based on the serious misconduct allegations concerning her conduct with children. The court found no evidence that union membership or the exercise of union rights was the reason for dismissal. the Respondent had received specific complaints about the Applicant's conduct from parents and dealt with these through proper investigation procedures.
What it means for employers
Employers can dismiss employees for serious misconduct even if they are union members or the union has recently become involved at the workplace. However, employers must ensure dismissal decisions are genuinely based on the misconduct alleged, not on the employee's union status or the union's recent activities. Proper investigation and documentation of the concerns are important.
What it means for employees
Joining a union and requesting union assistance does not protect an employee from dismissal for genuine serious misconduct. However, employees should be aware that dismissals must be based on the actual misconduct, not on union membership or activity. If an employee suspects the real reason for dismissal is union-related, they may have grounds to challenge it.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2015/2015fca0014Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →