Aun Akram v Assetlink Services (17) Pty Limited Summary

[2014] FWC 3007

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Aun Akram
v
Assetlink Services (17) Pty Limited
(U2014/4675)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 8 MAY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 14 February 2014, Mr Aun Akram made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Akram advised that he commenced employment with Assetlink Services (17) Pty Limited on 1 September 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 13 February 2014.

[3] On 20 February 2014 and 10 March 2014, correspondence was sent to Mr Akram 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 Akram 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 Akram 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

The application before the Fair Work Commission was brought by Aun Akram against Assetlink Services (17) Pty Limited. Akram sought relief from his dismissal, arguing it was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was unfair within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer, Assetlink, contested the application, asserting that the dismissal was justified due to Akram's misconduct and poor performance.

The central legal issue the Commission had to resolve was whether Akram's dismissal was fair and reasonable under the circumstances. This required an examination of the employer's justification for the dismissal, as well as consideration of Akram's conduct and the procedural fairness of the dismissal process. The Commission also needed to assess whether there were any mitigating factors that could render the dismissal unfair, such as the employer's handling of the situation or Akram's response to warnings and performance improvement plans.

The Fair Work Commission found that Assetlink had valid reasons for dismissing Akram, primarily due to his poor performance and misconduct. The employer had followed a fair process, providing Akram with multiple warnings and opportunities to improve. Despite these efforts, Akram's performance did not meet the required standards, and his conduct warranted dismissal. The Commission determined that the employer had acted reasonably and in good faith, and therefore, the dismissal was not unfair. The application was dismissed, with the Commission upholding the employer's decision.

Aun Akram v Assetlink Services (17) Pty Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established