A retailer's HR specialists have "ample qualifications and experience" to defend an unfair dismissal case, while conflict over whether an employee resigned or was dismissed does not add sufficient complexity to justify having a lawyer put the company's position, the Fair Work Commission has ruled.

Commissioner Ian Cambridge rejected an argument by the Specialty Fashion Group T/A Millers that the company should be granted permission to be legally represented because of the jurisdictional argument arising from its assertion that an employee taking unfair dismissal action had resigned rather than been dismissed.

Commissioner Cambridge said, however, that the circumstances surrounding the employee's dismissal and the employer's jurisdictional objection did not appear to be "particularly unusual issues".

"Contests surrounding what may be described as an alleged constructive dismissal are commonplace occurrences found in many unfair dismissal claims. Consequently, I am unable to identify a level of complexity beyond that which is presented in a fairly routine unfair dismissal matter," he said.

Commissioner Cambridge also rejected Millers' argument that it was restricted in its ability to represent itself because its advocates would potentially also be company witnesses.

Upholding the employee's submission that the company's HR employees had "ample qualifications and experience" to be able to represent it, Commissioner Cambridge said the company's size, and the qualifications and experience of its HR personnel would mean its internal representatives would be "capable of making a 'striking impression' or be 'impressive' or be 'powerful in effect'".

Commissioner Cambridge said he also believed that unnecessary formality and unfairness would be created if he allowed representation, given that the employee was self-represented, referring to Justice Geoffrey Flick's decision in Warrell v Walton (see Related Article).

Mrs Angela Doyle v Specialty Fashion Group T/A Millers [2014] FWC 7423 (20 October 2014)

Time extended for dismissal claim after representative error

The Fair Work Commission has granted an extension of time after accepting that a claim on behalf of a long-serving hospital security guard was lodged one day outside the time limit because of representative error.

The guard was employed by the Western Hospital in Melbourne from 2002 until his dismissal this year.

The guard's legal representative initially submitted to the Commission that he would require an extension of time because she had not followed her usual practice of mailing and emailing his unfair dismissal application.

Her subsequent email arrived at the Commission on July 29, one day outside the 21-day limit.

Neil Finlayson v Western Health T/A Western Hospital [2014] FWC 6076 (20 October 2014)