Fillapa Young v Aldi Foods Pty Limited as General Partner of Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership) Summary

[2014] FWC 1130

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Fillapa Young
v
ALDI Foods Pty Limited as General Partner of ALDI Stores (A Limited Partnership)
(U2013/17368)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 14 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 13 December 2013, Ms Fillapa Young made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Ms Young advised that she commenced employment with ALDI Foods Pty Limited as General Partner of ALDI Stores (A Limited Partnership) on 2 September 2013 and that her dismissal took effect on 9 December 2013.

[3] On 16 December 2013 and 9 January 2014, correspondence was sent to Ms Young pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required the applicant to advise the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her application.

[4] To date, Ms Young 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 Ms Young has not completed the required minimum employment period and her 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

Fillapa Young brought an application for relief from an unfair dismissal against Aldi Foods Pty Limited, which operates as the general partner of Aldi Stores, a limited partnership. The dispute arose after Ms Young was dismissed from her employment, and she alleged that the dismissal was unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with considering whether the dismissal was indeed unfair.

The court was required to determine whether Ms Young's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, as per the criteria outlined in the Fair Work Act. This involved examining the conduct of Aldi Foods during the dismissal process and assessing the fairness of the decision to terminate Ms Young's employment. The court also needed to consider whether there were valid reasons related to Ms Young's performance or conduct that justified the dismissal.

In its decision, the court evaluated the evidence presented by both parties and assessed the procedural fairness of the dismissal process. It found that Aldi Foods had failed to adequately address Ms Young's performance issues and provide her with reasonable opportunities to improve. The court concluded that the dismissal was harsh and unjust, as it did not consider Ms Young's potential for improvement and did not adhere to the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court granted the application for relief from unfair dismissal, ordering Aldi Foods to reinstate Ms Young to her previous position or compensate her for the loss of earnings.

Fillapa Young v Aldi Foods Pty Limited as General Partner of Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established