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

[2015] FWC 8924

[2015] FWC 8924

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

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

<Price code A, PR575429>