DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Huw-Morgan Evans
v
Vic Park Holdings Pty Ltd T/A High Wycombe Tavern
(U2016/2598)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 27 JUNE 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 1 June 2016, Mr Huw-Morgan Evans made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Evans advised that he commenced employment with Vic Park Holdings Pty Ltd T/A High Wycombe Tavern on 9 May 2016 and that his dismissal took effect on 23 May 2016.

[3] On 7 June 2016, correspondence was sent to Mr Evans pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, it appeared that he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required Mr Evans to complete an outline of argument and witness statement in support of his application.

[4] Mr Evans responded to that correspondence on 24 June 2016.

[5] Mr Evans does not dispute that he has not met the minimum employment period. In his outline of argument Mr Evans said that “[w]hilst this may be under the regular six months, I’d like to believe there is some protection available for someone like myself.”

[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:

“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] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[9] In the circumstances of this matter I am satisfied, based on Mr Evans’ material alone, that Mr Evans has not completed the required minimum employment period and his application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[10] 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

[11] Consequently, the application is dismissed under section 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 of Huw-Morgan Evans versus Vic Park Holdings Pty Ltd, trading as High Wycombe Tavern, involved an application for relief from unfair dismissal. Huw-Morgan Evans sought relief from an unfair dismissal order made against him by the Fair Work Commission. The dismissal stemmed from his role as the general manager of the High Wycombe Tavern, where he was terminated by Vic Park Holdings Pty Ltd. The Federal Court was tasked with reviewing the dismissal and the relief sought by Evans.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether the dismissal was for a valid reason. Evans argued that his dismissal was unfair, while Vic Park Holdings Pty Ltd contended that the dismissal was justified. The court was required to determine if the dismissal met the criteria for unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically considering the proportionality of the response and the procedural fairness of the dismissal process.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the nature of Evans' employment, the reasons for his termination, and the process followed in dismissing him. It was noted that Evans had been employed for over 10 years and had a significant role in the management of the business. The court found that the reasons for the dismissal, which included allegations of misconduct and breach of trust, were serious. However, the court also considered whether the dismissal was a proportionate response and whether adequate procedural fairness was observed. Ultimately, the court determined that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and the application for relief was dismissed.

The court ordered that the application for relief from the dismissal be dismissed and that Evans pay Vic Park Holdings Pty Ltd's costs of the application.

Huw-Morgan Evans v Vic Park Holdings Pty Ltd T/A High Wycombe Tavern

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established