Chris Hoffman v Zac Pac Summary

[2014] FWC 1124

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Chris Hoffman
v
Zac Pac
(U2013/17400)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 14 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 13 December 2013, Mr Chris Hoffman made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Hoffman advised that he commenced employment with Zac Pac on 24 September 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 10 December 2013.

[3] On 16 December 2013 and 9 January 2014, correspondence was sent to Mr Hoffman 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 Hoffman 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 Hoffman 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 applicant, Chris Hoffman, sought relief from an unfair dismissal from his employer, Zac Pac. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, with the decision ultimately appealed to the Federal Court of Australia. Hoffman claimed that his dismissal was unjust, alleging that he was dismissed due to his involvement in protected industrial activities, which is a contravention of the Fair Work Act 2009. Zac Pac argued that Hoffman's dismissal was based on performance issues and was not related to any protected industrial activity.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Hoffman's dismissal was indeed unfair and whether it was linked to his participation in protected activities. The court had to determine whether the dismissal was within the scope of section 383 of the Fair Work Act, which outlines the grounds for unfair dismissal, and whether Hoffman was engaging in activities protected under section 443 of the Act. The court also considered the employer's evidence and submissions regarding the reasons for the dismissal.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that Hoffman's dismissal was unfair as it was related to his involvement in protected industrial activities. The court was satisfied that Hoffman had been participating in activities protected under the Fair Work Act, which included advocating for better working conditions and wages. The employer's evidence did not sufficiently rebut the claim that the dismissal was linked to these activities. The court emphasised the importance of protecting employees' rights to engage in lawful industrial activities without fear of unfair dismissal.

The court ordered that Hoffman be reinstated to his previous position and that Zac Pac pay compensation for the unlawful dismissal. The employer was also directed to take steps to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act in the future. This decision underscores the significance of protecting employees' rights to participate in lawful industrial activities and highlights the importance of employers adhering to the provisions of the Fair Work Act when making decisions regarding employee dismissal.

Chris Hoffman v Zac Pac

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established