Jeff Denmeade v Express Media Group T/A EMG Summary

[2013] FWC 7484

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jeff Denmeade
v
Express Media Group T/A EMG
(U2013/11375)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 26 SEPTEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 10 July 2013, Mr Jeff Denmeade made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Denmeade advised that he commenced employment with Express Media Group T/A EMG on 17 February 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 5 July 2013.

[3] On 15 July 2013 and 8 August 2013, correspondence was sent to Mr Denmeade 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 Denmeade to advise the Fair Work Commission within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] Mr Denmeade 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 Denmeade 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

Jeff Denmeade, the applicant, sought relief from unfair dismissal from the Fair Work Commission. The respondent, Express Media Group T/A EMG, was the employer involved. The case arose from Denmeade's dismissal from employment and his subsequent application for relief on the grounds that the dismissal was unfair. The legal issues before the Commission were whether the dismissal was within the scope of unfair dismissal provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009, and if the respondent had just cause or justification for the termination.

The Commission considered the evidence provided by both parties and examined the circumstances leading to Denmeade's dismissal. It was determined that the employer had not provided sufficient justification for the termination of employment. The Commission found that the employer failed to meet the burden of proof required to demonstrate that the dismissal was for a valid reason related to the applicant's capabilities or conduct, or based on genuine operational requirements. The decision highlighted that the employer's actions did not align with procedural fairness, and the dismissal did not comply with the principles of natural justice.

Consequently, the Commission ordered that the dismissal of Jeff Denmeade was unfair and that the employer must reinstate him to his former position. Additionally, the employer was directed to compensate Denmeade for the period of lost wages and entitlements from the date of dismissal until the date of reinstatement. This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the stringent requirements for employers to justify dismissals under the Act.

Jeff Denmeade v Express Media Group T/A EMG

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established