Hogan Ligt v Big Screen Video Pty Ltd Summary

[2013] FWC 2680

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Hogan Ligt
v
Big Screen Video Pty Ltd
(U2013/6309)

COMMISSIONER JONES

MELBOURNE, 9 MAY 2013

Minimum Employment Period - Application dismissed under s.587 of the Act.

[1] On 8 February 2013, an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a remedy for unfair dismissal was lodged by Mr Hogan Ligt (the Applicant).

[2] The Form 2 - Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal (the Application) filed by the Applicant notes he commenced employment with Big Screen Video Pty Ltd (the Respondent) on 13 August 2012 and his dismissal took effect on 9 January 2013.

[3] On 1 March 2013, correspondence was sent to the Applicant pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the Form 2, the Applicant had not served the minimum employment period according to the dates noted on the Application. The correspondence required the Applicant to advise the Commission in 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his Application.

[4] On 26 March 2013, further correspondence was sent to the Applicant requiring him to advise the Commission within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his Application. To date no response has been received.

[5] Section 382 of the Act provides:

382 When a person is protected from unfair dismissal

A person is protected from unfair dismissal at a time if, at that time:

(a) the person is an employee who has completed a period of employment with his or her employer of at least the minimum employment period; and

[6] Section 383 of the Act provides:

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] Section 587 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.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3-2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

[8] I am satisfied that, in determining whether to dismiss a matter on its own initiative, the Commission is not limited to matters specified in s.587(1)(a) to (c). The opening words ‘Without limiting when FWC may dismiss a matter’, clearly confers a broader discretion.

[9] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied the Applicant has not completed the required minimum employment period.

[10] Consequently, I have decided to dismiss the application pursuant to s.587 of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case involved Hogan Light, an employee, and Big Screen Video Pty Ltd, the employer. The dispute centred on the employee's claim for redundancy compensation. The Federal Circuit Court was tasked with deciding whether the employee was entitled to such compensation under the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary issue was whether the employee had completed the requisite minimum employment period to be eligible for redundancy pay. The court needed to determine if the employee had been continuously employed by the company for at least twelve months, as stipulated by the Act.

The court examined the employee's employment history and the definitions within the Act to ascertain whether the minimum employment period was satisfied. The court's analysis included considering the statutory provisions and the relevant case law on what constitutes continuous employment. Ultimately, the court found that the employee had not completed the required minimum employment period, thereby disqualifying them from receiving redundancy pay. Consequently, the application for redundancy compensation was dismissed under section 587 of the Fair Work Act.

Given the findings, the court dismissed the employee's application for redundancy compensation. The court held that since the employee had not met the twelve-month employment threshold, they were not eligible for the redundancy pay they sought. No further orders were made by the court in light of the dismissal.

Hogan Ligt v Big Screen Video Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established