Jake Johansen v J H Lever & Associates Pty Ltd

Case

[2019] FWC 2766

26 APRIL 2019


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Jake Johansen v J H Lever & Associates Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 2766 [2019] FWC 2766 26 APRIL 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Jake Johansen, sought an unfair dismissal remedy against his former employer, J H Lever & Associates Pty Ltd. Johansen applied to the Federal Circuit Court under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, arguing that his dismissal was unfair and that he was entitled to be protected from such dismissal under section 384 of the Act. Johansen claimed that his employment had progressed to the point where he had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment, even though he was employed as a casual worker. The employer contended that Johansen did not satisfy the minimum employment period required under the Act and that his absence from work did not constitute an "unpaid authorised absence."

The court was required to determine whether Johansen's employment period qualified as the minimum employment period stipulated by section 384 of the Act, and whether his absence from work could be characterised as an "unpaid authorised absence" under section 22 of the Act. The court had to consider the nature of Johansen's employment, the employer's policy regarding absences, and the meaning of "regular and systematic" in the context of employment. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether Johansen had developed a reasonable expectation of continuing employment, which would trigger the protections afforded by section 384 of the Act.

In its decision, the court found that Johansen's employment met the statutory criteria for protection from unfair dismissal. The court concluded that Johansen's employment had progressed to a point where he had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment, and that his absence from work qualified as an "unpaid authorised absence." The court held that Johansen's employment period was sufficient to meet the minimum employment requirement, and that the statutory criteria under section 384 of the Act were satisfied. Consequently, Johansen was entitled to be protected from unfair dismissal.

The court ordered that Johansen be reinstated to his previous position with J H Lever & Associates Pty Ltd, and that he be compensated for any loss of wages and entitlements from the date of his dismissal until his reinstatement. The court further directed that the employer pay Johansen's costs of the application.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Employment & Labour Law

Legal Concepts

  • Jurisdiction

  • Unfair Dismissal

  • Regular and Systematic

  • Reasonable Expectation of Continuing Employment

  • Unpaid Authorised Absence

  • Statutory Criteria