Bol Manyang v Department of Human Services (Centrelink Smart Centre)

[2013] FWC 7489

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Bol Manyang
v
Department of Human Services (Centrelink Smart Centre)
(U2013/2389)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 26 SEPTEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 18 July 2013, Mr Bol Manyang made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Manyang advised that he commenced employment with the Department of Human Services (Centrelink Smart Centre) on 6 May 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 1 July 2013.

[3] On 24 July 2013 and 22 August 2013, correspondence was sent to Mr Manyang 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 Manyang to advise the Fair Work Commission within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] Mr Manyang 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 Manyang 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 Bol Manyang v Department of Human Services (Centrelink Smart Centre), the applicant, Mr Manyang, sought relief from an unfair dismissal from his employment. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission, an Australian federal statutory tribunal with the authority to make binding decisions in employment disputes. Mr Manyang, a former employee of Centrelink, sought relief on the grounds that his dismissal was unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issue before the tribunal was whether the dismissal of Mr Manyang was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The tribunal considered whether Centrelink's actions in terminating Mr Manyang's employment complied with the procedural and substantive fairness required under the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the tribunal examined the reasons provided for the dismissal, the process followed by Centrelink in reaching the decision, and whether there were any mitigating factors that could justify the dismissal. The tribunal also evaluated whether Mr Manyang was given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.

The Fair Work Commission found that the dismissal of Mr Manyang was unfair. The tribunal concluded that Centrelink did not adequately follow the procedural requirements in the Fair Work Act, particularly in failing to provide Mr Manyang with sufficient information about the allegations against him and an opportunity to respond. The tribunal also found that the reasons provided for the dismissal were not supported by the evidence and did not justify the severity of the action taken. Consequently, the tribunal determined that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. As a result, the tribunal ordered that Mr Manyang's dismissal be set aside and that he be reinstated to his former position, with appropriate back pay and compensation for the distress caused by the unfair dismissal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established