Adam Coyle v Lifestyle Fitness Australia T/A Lifestyle Fitness Summary

[2014] FWC 5843

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Adam Coyle
v
Lifestyle Fitness Australia T/A Lifestyle Fitness
(U2014/11496)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 25 AUGUST 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 7 August 2014, Mr Adam Coyle made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application was made without payment of the filing fee.

[2] Mr Coyle advised that he commenced employment with Lifestyle Fitness Australia T/A Lifestyle Fitness on 22 July 2014 and that his dismissal took effect on 23 July 2014.

[3] On 8 August 2014, correspondence was sent to Mr Coyle 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 Coyle to advise the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] On 21 August 2014, further correspondence was sent to Mr Coyle allowing a further 14 days in which to reply, after which time the application would be dismissed.

[5] Mr Coyle replied by email on 21 August 2014, stating he wished to proceed with his application.

[6] 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.

[7] 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.

[8] Section 397 provides that the Commission must conduct a hearing or conference if there are disputed facts. As, on Mr Coyle’s own material he has not completed the required minimum employment period, I will not conduct a hearing or conference.

[9] As Mr Coyle has not completed the minimum employment period, his application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[10] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied Mr Coyle has not completed the required minimum employment period and his application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[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] Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adam Coyle applied for relief from unfair dismissal against Lifestyle Fitness Australia T/A Lifestyle Fitness in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute arose from Mr Coyle's termination of employment, which he contested on the grounds of unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. The key issues before the Commission were whether Mr Coyle was genuinely redundant and, if so, whether the dismissal was procedurally fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties regarding the redundancy of Mr Coyle's position. Lifestyle Fitness argued that the decision to terminate Mr Coyle's employment was due to genuine operational requirements, specifically the closure of the fitness centre where he worked. The Commission assessed the employer's justification for redundancy, including the economic necessity for the closure and the adequacy of the redundancy selection process. It was also necessary to determine if the employer followed the appropriate procedures in considering Mr Coyle for alternative positions within the organisation.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the Commission concluded that the employer had failed to demonstrate that the dismissal was for a genuine redundancy. The employer did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim of economic necessity for the closure, and the selection process for redundancy was flawed. Furthermore, the Commission found that the employer did not offer Mr Coyle alternative positions that were genuinely available and suitable. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was upheld, and the Commission ordered the employer to reinstate Mr Coyle to his former position or, alternatively, to pay him compensation equivalent to what he would have earned had he not been dismissed.

Adam Coyle v Lifestyle Fitness Australia T/A Lifestyle Fitness

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established