Carol Windcross v Domain Principal Group

[2014] FWC 5018

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Carol Windcross
v
Domain Principal Group
(U2014/6556)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 25 JULY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 15 April 2014, Mrs Carol Windcross made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mrs Windcross advised that she commenced employment with Domain Principal Group on 1 November 2013 and that her dismissal took effect on 25 March 2014.

[3] On 17 April 2014, correspondence was sent to Mrs Windcross pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required Mrs Windcross to advise the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her application.

[4] On 14 May 2014, further correspondence was sent to Mrs Windcross allowing a further 14 days in which to reply, after which time the application would be dismissed.

[5] To date, Mrs Windcross did not reply to that correspondence.

[6] 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.

[7] 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.

[8] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied Mrs Windcross has not completed the required minimum employment period and her application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[9] 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.

[10] Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Carol Windcross brought an application against Domain Principal Group for relief from an unfair dismissal. Ms Windcross alleged that her dismissal was unjust and sought reinstatement or compensation. The Domain Principal Group contended that the dismissal was fair and justified under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was required to determine whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and if it was, whether there were any mitigating factors that would render the dismissal fair. The central issue revolved around the validity of the reasons provided for the dismissal and whether the process followed complied with procedural fairness.

The Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties, including the circumstances leading to the dismissal, the company's policies, and the actions taken by Domain Principal Group. It considered the credibility of the testimonies and the documentation provided. The Commission concluded that the reasons provided for the dismissal were valid and that the process followed was procedurally fair. Consequently, the Commission found that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal. It held that the employer had valid reasons for the termination and that the process was fair. Therefore, Ms Windcross was not entitled to reinstatement or compensation. The decision underscored the importance of employers ensuring that dismissals are justified and that procedural fairness is maintained to avoid potential claims of unfair dismissal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established