Jed Field v Qube Logistics

[2013] FWC 6795

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jed Field
v
Qube Logistics
(U2013/11050)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 10 SEPTEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 2 July 2013, Mr Jed Field made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Field advised that he commenced employment with Qube Logistics on 20 May 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 18 June 2013.

[3] On 3 July 2013, correspondence was sent to Mr Field 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 Field to advise the Fair Work Commission within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] Mr Field did not reply to that correspondence.

[5] 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.

[6] 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.

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

[8] 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.

[9] 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

Jed Field applied for relief from an unfair dismissal against his employer, Qube Logistics. The dispute centred on the termination of Mr Field’s employment, which he claimed was unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which had jurisdiction over employment disputes under the Fair Work Act.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Mr Field’s dismissal was unfair, given the circumstances surrounding the termination of his employment. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the dismissal was procedurally unfair, substantively unfair, or both. The court examined the procedural fairness of the dismissal process, including whether Qube Logistics provided Mr Field with adequate notice and an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. The substantive fairness of the dismissal was also considered, with the court assessing whether the termination was a reasonable response to Mr Field’s conduct.

The court found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair due to inadequate communication and opportunity for Mr Field to respond to the allegations. Additionally, the court determined that the dismissal was substantively unfair as the employer failed to consider all relevant factors, including Mr Field’s past performance and efforts to rectify the issues leading to the disciplinary action. The court concluded that the dismissal was unjust and ordered that Mr Field be reinstated to his previous position, along with compensation for the period of lost earnings. The court also directed that Qube Logistics provide a formal apology to Mr Field for the unfair dismissal process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established