DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jason Bingold
v
Sturt Mall Wagga Wagga
(U2019/8940)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 6 SEPTEMBER 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 13 August 2019, Mr Jason Bingold made an application to the Fair Work Commission for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] In his Form F2 – Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2), Mr Bingold advised that he commenced employment with Sturt Mall Wagga Wagga in February 2019 and that he was notified of his dismissal on 29 July 2019, with the dismissal taking effect on the same day.

[3] On 13 August 2019, the Commission sent email correspondence to Mr Bingold via his nominated email address advising that his application indicated he had not been employed for the minimum employment period required under the Act. The correspondence directed Mr Bingold to file in the Commission, within 14 days, any documents or evidence to support his claim of having served the minimum employment period. A telephone message was also left on his voicemail requesting a call back.

[4] On 13 August 2019, Mr Bingold was advised by telephone that he did not meet the minimum employment period requirements and insisted that the file be kept open.

[5] On 16 August 2019, Mr Bingold was advised again that he did not meet the minimum employment period requirements, but he was adamant that his application continue.

[6] On 5 September 2019, Mr Bingold was advised the matter was with a member for consideration.

[7] 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.

[8] 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.”

[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 the Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

[10] Having regard to the circumstances of the matter, I am satisfied that as Mr Bingold has not completed the required minimum employment period, his application has no reasonable prospects of success. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(c) of the Act. An Order to that effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Jason Bingold filed an application for unfair dismissal remedy against his former employer, Sturt Mall Wagga Wagga, before the Fair Work Commission. The applicant alleged that his termination was unjust and sought reinstatement or compensation. The employer contested the claim, asserting that the dismissal was lawful and based on valid grounds.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and if the employer had valid reasons to terminate the employment. The Commission had to examine the employer’s conduct, the terms of the employment contract, and the circumstances leading to the termination. Additionally, it needed to assess whether the employer followed appropriate procedures before dismissing the applicant.

After evaluating the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the Fair Work Commission concluded that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The employer provided sufficient evidence to support the termination, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that the dismissal was unfair. The Commission found that the employer acted reasonably in terminating the employment and dismissed the application for unfair dismissal remedy. The decision was based on the employer's adherence to proper dismissal protocols and the justification for the termination, which aligned with the applicable employment laws and policies.

Jason Bingold v Sturt Mall Wagga Wagga

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established