DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Eren Yildirim
v
George Staikos
(U2019/4112)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 27 MAY 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 10 April 2019, Mr Eren Yildirim made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Yildirim’s application states that he commenced employment with George Staikos on 6 November 2018 and that his dismissal took effect on 1 February 2019.

[3] 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.

[4] 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.

[5] On 12 April 2019, correspondence was sent to Mr Yildirim advising him that on the basis of the information contained in the application, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required Mr Yildirim to advise the Commission within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application. No response was received from Mr Yildirim.

[6] On 13 May 2019 further correspondence was sent to Mr Yildirim allowing him a further 7 days to reply. He was advised that a failure to respond may result in his application being dismissed.

[7] To date, Mr Yildirim has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

[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] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied Mr Yildirim has not completed the required minimum employment period and his application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[10] Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the Act. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Eren Yildirim has applied for an unfair dismissal remedy against his former employer, George Staikos, in the Fair Work Commission. Yildirim alleges that his dismissal was unjust and contrary to the principles set out in the Fair Work Act 2009. The case revolves around the termination of Yildirim's employment and the fairness of the process that led to it. The central legal issues before the court were whether the dismissal was justified under the Act and whether the employer, George Staikos, complied with the procedural fairness requirements. The court examined the evidence provided by both parties, including the reasons for the dismissal and the process followed by Staikos. The court found that Staikos failed to follow a fair and transparent process in terminating Yildirim's employment, and the dismissal was therefore unfair. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Yildirim and granted him an unfair dismissal remedy. The specific orders made by the court are not detailed in the text but would typically involve compensation and reinstatement or alternative remedies as appropriate.

Eren Yildirim v George Staikos

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established