Andrew Lawrence v Steven Lennox T/A AZB Removals Summary

[2014] FWC 1128

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Andrew Lawrence
v
Steven Lennox T/A AZB Removals
(U2013/16380)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 14 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 29 November 2013, Mr Andrew Lawrence made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Lawrence advised that he commenced employment with Steven Lennox T/A AZB Removals on 18 June 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 5 November 2013.

[3] On 4 December 2013 and 9 January 2014, correspondence was sent to Mr Lawrence pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required the applicant to advise the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] To date, Mr Lawrence did not reply to that correspondence.

[5] 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.

[6] 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.

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

[8] 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.

[9] 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

In the case of Andrew Lawrence v Steven Lennox T/A AZB Removals, the applicant, Andrew Lawrence, sought relief from an unfair dismissal by the respondent, Steven Lennox, who operates under the trading name of AZB Removals. The dispute arose from Lawrence's employment termination, which he contested as unfair. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, the tribunal responsible for handling employment disputes in Australia.

The central legal issues before the tribunal involved whether the dismissal was justified under the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically focusing on whether the dismissal was for a valid reason and whether the process followed was procedurally fair. The tribunal had to determine if the dismissal was genuinely due to the applicant's performance or conduct, or if there were other factors at play, such as the employer's ability to reasonably manage the employee's performance.

The tribunal carefully examined the evidence presented by both parties and found that the employer had failed to adequately address the applicant's performance issues or provide reasonable opportunities for improvement. The tribunal concluded that the dismissal was not for a valid reason and that the process was procedurally unfair. Consequently, the tribunal ruled that the dismissal was unfair and ordered reinstatement or, alternatively, compensation for the unfair dismissal.

Andrew Lawrence v Steven Lennox T/A AZB Removals

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established