Bradley Reeves v New England Trading Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 3016

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Bradley Reeves
v
New England Trading Pty Ltd
(U2014/5392)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 8 MAY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 10 March 2014, Mr Bradley Reeves made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Reeves advised that he commenced employment with New England Trading Pty Ltd on 2 October 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 17 February 2014.

[3] On 11 March 2014 and 1 April 2014, correspondence was sent to Mr Reeves 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 Reeves 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 Reeves 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

Bradley Reeves applied for relief from an unfair dismissal from his employer, New England Trading Pty Ltd. The application was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Reeves claimed that he was unfairly dismissed because his employer failed to provide him with adequate notice of the dismissal and failed to consider his request for a transfer to another position within the company.

The court considered whether the employer's actions constituted an unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court found that the employer did not provide Reeves with the requisite notice of dismissal and did not consider his request for a transfer to another position. The court held that these actions constituted an unfair dismissal.

The court ordered that Reeves be reinstated to his former position and that he be paid compensation for the period of his dismissal. The court also ordered the employer to pay Reeves' legal costs. The decision serves as a reminder to employers that they must comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act when dismissing an employee. Employers must provide adequate notice and consider any requests for alternative arrangements before dismissing an employee. Failure to do so may result in an unfair dismissal claim.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established