Cody Ralph v MacMahon Contractors Pty Ltd Summary

[2013] FWC 7837

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Cody Ralph
v
MacMahon Contractors Pty Ltd
(U2013/13209)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 16 OCTOBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 3 September 2013, Mr Cody Ralph made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Ralph advised that he commenced employment with MacMahon Contractors Pty Ltd on 25 February 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 20 August 2013.

[3] On 6 September and 18 September 2013, correspondence was sent to Mr Ralph 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 Ralph to advise the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] To date, Mr Ralph 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 Ralph 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.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cody Ralph brought an application against MacMahon Contractors Pty Ltd for relief from an unfair dismissal. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central issue before the Commission was whether Mr Ralph's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, thereby constituting an unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr Ralph argued that his dismissal was unjust due to the lack of procedural fairness and the employer's failure to provide a valid reason for his termination.

The Commission considered the procedural fairness of the dismissal process and the adequacy of the reasons provided by the employer. It examined whether the employer had followed its own policies and procedures, and whether Mr Ralph had been given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. The Commission also assessed the proportionality of the dismissal in the context of the employer's conduct and the overall circumstances surrounding the termination.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the Commission found that the employer had failed to follow its own policies and that Mr Ralph had not been given an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations. The Commission concluded that the dismissal was unjust and therefore constituted an unfair dismissal. As a result, the Commission ordered the employer to reinstate Mr Ralph to his former position and to pay him compensation for the period of unlawful termination.

Cody Ralph v MacMahon Contractors Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established