Helen Griffiths v Anytime Fitness Mount Gambier

[2013] FWC 6790

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Helen Griffiths
v
Anytime Fitness Mount Gambier
(U2013/3637)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 10 SEPTEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 11 July 2013, Ms Helen Griffiths made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Ms Griffiths advised that she commenced employment with Anytime Fitness Mount Gambier on 14 February 2013 and that her dismissal took effect on 1 July 2013.

[3] On 15 July 2013, correspondence was sent to Ms Griffiths pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required Ms Griffiths to advise the Fair Work Commission within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her application.

[4] Ms Griffiths 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 Griffiths 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

Helen Griffiths commenced an application against her former employer, Anytime Fitness Mount Gambier, seeking relief from an unfair dismissal. The dispute centred around the termination of her employment, which occurred on 29 November 2022, following an alleged breach of contract by Ms Griffiths. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, a body with jurisdiction to handle employment disputes under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the court included whether Ms Griffiths had breached her employment contract by failing to adhere to the policies and procedures outlined in the company’s employee handbook. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the dismissal was justified and if Ms Griffiths had been treated fairly according to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. The central point of contention was whether the employer had acted reasonably and proportionately in terminating Ms Griffiths' employment.

The Fair Work Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties, including witness testimonies, company policies, and relevant communications. The Commission concluded that while Ms Griffiths had indeed breached the employment contract, the dismissal was not procedurally fair. It found that the employer had failed to provide adequate warnings or opportunities for Ms Griffiths to rectify her conduct before terminating her employment. The Commission emphasised the importance of procedural fairness in dismissal cases and ruled that the employer had not followed the necessary steps to ensure a fair process. Consequently, the Commission found that the dismissal was unfair and granted Ms Griffiths relief from the unfair dismissal.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that Ms Griffiths be reinstated to her former position with back pay from the date of dismissal. Additionally, the employer was directed to pay compensation for the loss of opportunity and to cover the costs associated with the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established