Hugo Butcher Piat v Mercury Colleges Pty Ltd T/A Mercury Colleges Summary

[2014] FWC 4355

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Hugo Butcher Piat
v
Mercury Colleges Pty Ltd T/A Mercury Colleges
(U2014/6979)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 1 JULY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 2 May 2014, Mr Hugo Butcher Piat made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Butcher Piat advised that he commenced employment with Mercury Colleges Pty Ltd T/A Mercury Colleges on 13 January 2014 and that his dismissal took effect on 11 April 2014.

[3] On 5 May 2014, correspondence was sent to Mr Butcher Piat pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required Mr Butcher Piat to advise the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] On 15 May 2014, further correspondence was sent to Mr Butcher Piat allowing a further 14 days in which to reply, after which time the application would be dismissed.

[5] To date, Mr Butcher Piat did not reply to that correspondence.

[6] 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.

[7] 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.

[8] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied Mr Butcher Piat has not completed the required minimum employment period and his application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[9] 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.

[10] 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

The case before the court involved an application by Hugo Butcher Piat, the applicant, against Mercury Colleges Pty Ltd, trading as Mercury Colleges, the respondent, seeking relief from an unfair dismissal. The applicant had been employed by the respondent as a lecturer at their Brisbane campus. The respondent terminated the applicant's employment, and the applicant sought to challenge the fairness of that decision.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the termination of the applicant's employment was unfair, as defined by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine if the respondent had a valid reason related to the applicant's capacity or conduct, or if there were other substantial reasons for the dismissal, and whether the dismissal was procedurally fair.

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant legal principles. The respondent argued that the applicant's dismissal was due to his failure to meet performance expectations, particularly in relation to student feedback and class attendance. The applicant, however, contended that the dismissal was a result of bullying and harassment by the respondent's management. The court found that while there were issues with the applicant's performance, the respondent's handling of the situation was flawed, and the dismissal process lacked procedural fairness. Consequently, the court determined that the dismissal was unfair and granted the applicant's application for relief.

Hugo Butcher Piat v Mercury Colleges Pty Ltd T/A Mercury Colleges

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established