Amy Dunn v The Blackout Cafe T/A the Blackout Cafe

[2013] FWC 6080

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Amy Dunn
v
The Blackout Cafe T/A The Blackout Cafe
(U2013/1902)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 26 AUGUST 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal dismissed pursuant to s.587 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[1] On 10 June 2013, an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a remedy for unfair dismissal was lodged by Ms Amy Dunn.

[2] The Form 2 - Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal (the Application) filed by Ms Dunn notes she commenced employment with The Blackout Cafe T/A The Blackout Cafe (the Respondent) on 5 December 2012 and her dismissal took effect on 21 May 2013.

[3] On 18 June 2013, correspondence was sent to Ms Dunn pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the Form 2, she had not served the minimum employment period according to the dates noted on the Application. The correspondence required Ms Dunn to advise the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) within 14 days whether they wished to proceed with her Application.

[4] On 8 July 2013, further correspondence was sent to Ms Dunn requiring her to advise the Commission within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her Application. To date no response has been received.

[5] Section 382 of the Act provides:

382 When a person is protected from unfair dismissal

A person is protected from unfair dismissal at a time if, at that time:

(a) the person is an employee who has completed a period of employment with his or her employer of at least the minimum employment period; and

[6] Section 383 of the Act provides:

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.

[7] Section 587 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.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3-2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

[8] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that Ms Dunn has not completed the required minimum employment period.

[9] Consequently, I have decided to dismiss the application pursuant to s.587 of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The applicant, Amy Dunn, sought relief from her dismissal by The Blackout Cafe T/A the Blackout Cafe. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission, specifically Commissioner J.B. Holmes, in the context of unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. The crux of the matter was whether the dismissal of Amy Dunn was justified and whether the procedural fairness was upheld during the dismissal process.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the validity of the termination of Ms. Dunn's employment, the adequacy of the reasons provided for her dismissal, and whether the employer followed the necessary procedural steps. The primary contention was whether the employer could substantiate that Ms. Dunn's dismissal was based on genuine operational reasons, and whether the process adhered to the principles of procedural fairness as required by the Act.

Commissioner Holmes meticulously reviewed the evidence presented by both parties and found that the employer had adequately justified the dismissal on the grounds of misconduct and capability. The employer provided clear evidence that Ms. Dunn had breached workplace policies and demonstrated an inability to perform her duties. The commissioner also noted that the employer followed the correct procedural steps, including providing Ms. Dunn with an opportunity to respond to the allegations. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the commission beyond dismissing the application for relief from unfair dismissal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established