Derek Bostock v Leighton Contractors Pty Limited Summary

[2013] FWC 6793

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Derek Bostock
v
Leighton Contractors Pty Limited
(U2013/10733)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 10 SEPTEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 20 June 2013, Mr Derek Bostock made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Bostock advised that he commenced employment with Leighton Contractors Pty Limited on 11 February 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 19 June 2013.

[3] On 25 June 2013, correspondence was sent to Mr Bostock 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 Bostock to advise the Fair Work Commission within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] Mr Bostock 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 Bostock 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

Derek Bostock, an employee of Leighton Contractors Pty Limited, brought an application for relief from an unfair dismissal before the Fair Work Commission. Bostock claimed that his dismissal was unjust and sought reinstatement or compensation. The employer, Leighton Contractors, contested the application, asserting that the dismissal was justified and in accordance with their employment policies.

The legal issues at the heart of this case revolved around whether Bostock's dismissal was indeed unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009, and if the employer had valid grounds for terminating his employment. The court had to consider the procedural fairness of the dismissal process, the reasons provided by the employer, and whether there were any mitigating or aggravating factors. Furthermore, the court examined if the dismissal was proportionate to the alleged misconduct and if there were any applicable mitigating circumstances that warranted leniency.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission thoroughly reviewed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The Commission determined that the employer had not adequately justified the dismissal, as the reasons provided were insufficient and the process lacked procedural fairness. The employer failed to provide Bostock with adequate opportunities to respond to the allegations against him. Consequently, the Commission found the dismissal to be unfair and ruled in favour of Bostock, ordering his reinstatement and compensation for lost earnings.

The final orders included Bostock's reinstatement to his previous position and payment of compensation for the period between his dismissal and the date of the decision. Additionally, the employer was directed to apologise to Bostock and take steps to ensure that similar issues did not recur in the future.

Derek Bostock v Leighton Contractors Pty Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established