Charlie Tobin v Murphy Pipe and Civil Pty Ltd T/A Murphy Pipe & Civil Innovation in Action

[2014] FWC 1061

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Charlie Tobin
v
Murphy Pipe and Civil Pty Ltd T/A Murphy Pipe & Civil Innovation in Action
(U2013/15373)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 12 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal dismissed.

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

[2] Mr Tobin advised that he commenced employment with Murphy Pipe and Civil Pty Ltd T/A Murphy Pipe & Civil Innovation in Action in May 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 16 October 2013.

[3] On 30 October 2013 and 21 November 2013, correspondence was sent to Mr Tobin 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 Tobin 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 Tobin 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

[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 case before the Fair Work Commission involves Charlie Tobin, an employee, who has applied for relief from an unfair dismissal against Murphy Pipe and Civil Pty Ltd trading as Murphy Pipe & Civil Innovation in Action. The dispute centres around the termination of Tobin's employment and his claim that the dismissal was unfair. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was justified and whether any unfair aspects warranted relief.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the employer had a valid reason for terminating Tobin's employment and whether the process followed in terminating his employment was procedurally fair. Tobin argued that the reasons provided by the employer for his dismissal were not valid, and that the process was flawed. The employer contended that the dismissal was justified due to Tobin's misconduct and that the process adhered to the necessary procedural requirements.

The Commission found that the employer had a valid reason for terminating Tobin's employment, based on substantiated allegations of misconduct. The employer presented evidence that supported the decision to terminate, and the Commission accepted this evidence as credible and sufficient. Additionally, the Commission determined that the process followed in terminating Tobin's employment was procedurally fair, as it complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act. Given these findings, the Commission dismissed Tobin's application for relief from unfair dismissal.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal, affirming the employer's decision and process. The Commission found that the employer had a valid reason for terminating Tobin's employment and that the process followed was procedurally fair. No further relief was granted to Tobin.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established