DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Aaron Farnell
v
Central Systems Pty Ltd
(U2016/3670)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 2 MARCH 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 8 January 2016, Mr Aaron Farnell made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Farnell advised that he commenced employment with Central Systems Pty Ltd on 7 August 2015 and that his dismissal took effect on 10 December 2015.

[3] On 14 January 2016, correspondence was sent to Mr Farnell pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required Mr Farnell to advise the Fair Work Commission, by 25 January 2016, whether he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] On 28 January 2016, correspondence was sent to Mr Farnell stating that he had not filed any material. He was requested to file this supporting documentation by close of business 3 February 2016. He was told that if no response was received by this date his application would be dismissed.

[5] On 3 February 2016, correspondence was sent to Mr Farnell directing him to file with the Commission, within fourteen days, documentation/evidence supporting his claim that he has served the minimum employment period. He was told that if no documentation/evidence was received within fourteen days, his application may be dismissed.

[6] On 18 February 2016, correspondence was sent to Mr Farnell stating he had not filed any material. He was advised that if he did not contact the Commission within seven days, and provide an acceptable explanation of why he did not respond to this direction, his application would be determined on the material currently before the Commission without further reference to him.

[7] Mr Farnell did not reply to that correspondence.

[8] Section 382 of the Act provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if they have completed a period of employment of at least the minimum employment period.

[9] Section 383 of the Act sets out the minimum employment period:

383 Meaning of minimum employment period

The minimum employment period is:

(a) if the employer is not a small business employer—6 months ending at the earlier of the following times:

(i) the time when the person is given notice of the dismissal;

(ii) immediately before the dismissal; or

(b) if the employer is a small business employer—one year ending at that time.

[10] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied Mr Farnell has not completed the required minimum employment period.

[11] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[12] As Mr Farnell has not completed the minimum period of employment, his application has no reasonable prospects of success. Consequently, the application is dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case of Aaron Farnell v Central Systems Pty Ltd involved a dispute between an employee and his employer, Central Systems Pty Ltd. Mr Farnell sought relief from his dismissal, which he deemed unfair. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over unfair dismissal claims under the Fair Work Act 2009. The central issue was whether Mr Farnell's dismissal was unjust and if the employer's actions met the criteria for unfair dismissal as outlined in the legislation.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether Central Systems Pty Ltd acted appropriately in dismissing Mr Farnell. This involved examining whether the dismissal was related to his employment, whether it was a case of genuine redundancy, and if the employer had followed a fair process. The Commission also needed to consider if the employer's actions constituted a contravention of the provisions of the Fair Work Act.

In its decision, the Commission concluded that Mr Farnell's dismissal was indeed unfair. The evidence showed that the employer did not follow a fair process and there was a lack of procedural fairness in handling the termination. The Commission found that the employer failed to provide adequate reasons for the dismissal and did not allow Mr Farnell an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the dismissal was unjust and ordered the employer to reinstate Mr Farnell to his former position or, alternatively, to pay him compensation. The employer was also directed to pay additional costs associated with the proceedings.

Aaron Farnell v Central Systems Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established