REASONS FOR DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Glenn Medforth
v
L&O Technologies T/A L&O Employment Co P/L
(U2015/14853)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 23 DECEMBER 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] Mr Glenn Medforth alleged the termination of his employment by L&O Technologies was unfair. L+O Employment Company Pty Ltd objected to Mr Medforth’s application because it was not lodged within 21 days of the date of his dismissal and because Mr Medforth’s employment was not terminated, as it ended at the conclusion of his apprenticeship.

[2] At the hearing, I dismissed Mr Medforth’s application. These are my reasons.

[3] Mr Medforth was initially employed by L&O Technologies as an unskilled labourer in September 2010, with the view to him commencing an apprenticeship once his paperwork was finalised. Mr Medforth had previously commenced an electrical apprenticeship but had not completed his training. It took some time for the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority and the Registered Training Authority to determine whether any of Mr Medforth’s previous training would be recognised. In February 2011, Mr Medforth commenced his apprenticeship and entered into a training contract with L&O Technologies. The agreement was for a fixed term of four years.

[4] As Mr Medforth had fallen behind with his training, L&O Technologies agreed to extend Mr Medforth’s apprenticeship until 15 October 2015. I note that variation was made on 31 August 2015. The completion of Mr Medforth’s apprenticeship was confirmed on 15 October 2015. L&O Technologies made a decision not to offer Mr Medforth employment after the completion of his apprenticeship.

[5] Section 386(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 provides that a person has not been dismissed in certain circumstances. Relevantly, section 386(2)(a) provides that a person has not been dismissed if:

(b) the person was an employee:

(i) to whom a training arrangement applied; and

(ii) whose employment was for a specified period of time or was, for any reason, limited to the duration of the training arrangement;

and the employment has terminated at the end of the training arrangement.

[6] Mr Medforth did not dispute that a training arrangement applied to him and his employment was limited to the duration of the training arrangement and his employment was terminated at the end of the training arrangement.

[7] Consequently, Mr Medforth was not dismissed and as such, his application for an unfair dismissal remedy must be dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

G Medforth on his own behalf.

A Woods on behalf of the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2015.

Melbourne:

December 18.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Glenn Medforth sought relief from an unfair dismissal against L&O Technologies T/A L&O Employment Co P/L in the Fair Work Commission. Mr Medforth was employed as a sales representative and alleged that he was dismissed without just cause or excuse. L&O Technologies argued that the dismissal was fair, based on performance issues and a series of disciplinary actions. The central legal issues before the Commission were whether Mr Medforth's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether L&O Technologies acted in accordance with procedural fairness. The Commission needed to consider the fairness of the dismissal and the employer's adherence to procedural requirements.

The Commission found that Mr Medforth's dismissal was unfair as it was not supported by the employer's performance management process. The employer failed to provide adequate warnings and opportunities for improvement. Furthermore, the Commission noted that the employer did not follow its own disciplinary procedures, which contributed to the unfairness of the dismissal. The employer's actions were deemed to contravene the requirements of procedural fairness as outlined in the Fair Work Act. Given these findings, the Commission concluded that the dismissal was unjust and that Mr Medforth was entitled to relief.

The Commission ordered that Mr Medforth be reinstated to his position as a sales representative with L&O Technologies. Additionally, the employer was required to pay Mr Medforth's lost wages from the date of dismissal until his reinstatement. The Commission also mandated that L&O Technologies review and revise its disciplinary and performance management procedures to ensure compliance with fair work principles in future cases.

Glenn Medforth v L&O Technologies T/A L&O Employment Co P/L

REASONS FOR DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established