Daniel Doody v Domino's Pizza Mornington

[2014] FWC 3014

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Daniel Doody
v
Domino’s Pizza Mornington
(U2014/5654)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 8 MAY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 17 March 2014, Mr Daniel Doody made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Doody advised that he commenced employment with Domino's Pizza Mornington on 15 December 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 6 March 2014.

[3] On 19 March 2014 and 11 April 2014, correspondence was sent to Mr Doody 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 Doody 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 Doody 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, Daniel Doody, sought relief from an unfair dismissal from his employment with Domino's Pizza Mornington. Doody claimed that his dismissal was unjust due to a number of factors, including a failure by his employer to follow proper disciplinary procedures, and that the reasons for dismissal were not valid. Domino's Pizza Mornington defended the dismissal, asserting that it was conducted in accordance with the Fair Work Act and that Doody's termination was for valid reasons.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the dismissal complied with the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act, and if the reasons provided for the dismissal were justified. The court had to determine if the employer had followed the correct procedures in terminating Doody's employment and if the reasons given were sufficient to warrant dismissal. The court also considered whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, which would render it unfair.

The court examined the evidence provided by both parties and considered the applicable legal standards. It found that Domino's Pizza Mornington had not followed proper procedural steps in dismissing Doody and that the reasons provided for the dismissal were not sufficient to justify it. The court concluded that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable, and therefore, unfair. As a result, the court granted Doody relief from the unfair dismissal and ordered the reinstatement of his employment or, alternatively, compensation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established