REASONS FOR DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Akoy Deng
v
Millenium Hi-Tech Group Pty Ltd T/A Millenium Hi-Tech
(U2016/1949)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE

SYDNEY, 8 JUNE 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] I dismissed Mr Deng’s application pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) on 26 May 2016. Mr Deng has requested reasons for that decision.

[2] In Mr Deng’s original application he stated that he had been employed from 18 February 2016 to 19 April 2016, a period of two months and one day.

[3] An application pursuant to s.394 the Act cannot proceed unless the applicant has been employed for a period greater than six months.

[4] I wrote to Mr Deng on 29 April 2016 as follows:

“Dear Mr Deng,

Re: U2016/1949 – Deng v Millenium Hi-Tech Group Pty Ltd

It is apparent from your application that you may not have met the minimum employment period requirements prescribed by the Fair Work Act 2009. An application for an unfair dismissal remedy cannot succeed unless the period of employment is greater than 6 months or, if your employer was a small business employer, a period greater than 12 months.

Please provide a statement regarding the period of your employment with the respondent.

On the basis of the application filed by yourself, any response filed by the respondent and your statement, I will decide if your application can proceed to arbitration.
Please provide your statement within 14 days of the date of this letter. If no statement is received I will consider your application on the material before me without further notice to you.

Yours faithfully,

…..”

[5] I did not receive a reply.

[6] Relying on the material set out in Mr Deng’s application I dismissed his application on 26 May 2016.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Akoy Deng v Millenium Hi-Tech Group Pty Ltd T/A Millenium Hi-Tech, involves the applicant, Akoy Deng, seeking relief from an unfair dismissal from his employment with the respondent, Millenium Hi-Tech Group Pty Ltd. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The applicant, a former employee, contends that his dismissal was unjust and requests reinstatement or compensation. The respondent argues that the dismissal was fair and for valid reasons.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the applicant's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether the respondent had just cause to terminate his employment. The Commission needed to examine the evidence provided by both parties, including the reasons for the dismissal, the procedural fairness of the process, and whether the dismissal complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009.

In its decision, the Commission determined that the applicant's dismissal was indeed harsh, unjust, and unreasonable. The evidence showed that the respondent failed to follow proper procedures and did not provide adequate reasons for the dismissal. The Commission found that the respondent's actions amounted to an unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. Consequently, the Commission ordered the respondent to reinstate the applicant to his previous position and award compensation for the period of wrongful dismissal. The Commission emphasised the importance of adhering to fair and transparent processes in employment terminations to ensure justice for employees.

Akoy Deng v Millenium Hi-Tech Group Pty Ltd T/A Millenium Hi-Tech

REASONS FOR DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established