Jodine Harrison v Hair Generation Summary

[2014] FWC 4128

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jodine Harrison
v
Hair Generation
(U2014/6752)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 23 JUNE 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 22 April 2014, Ms Jodine Harrison made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Ms Harrison advised that she commenced employment with Hair Generation on 13 December 2013 and that her dismissal took effect on 1 April 2014.

[3] On 24 April 2014, correspondence was sent to Ms Harrison pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required Ms Harrison to advise the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her application.

[4] On 14 May 2014, further correspondence was sent to Ms Harrison allowing a further 14 days in which to reply, after which time the application would be dismissed.

[5] To date, Ms Harrison did not reply to that correspondence.

[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:

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.

[8] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied Ms Harrison has not completed the required minimum employment period and her application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[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 this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

[10] 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

In the matter of Jodine Harrison v Hair Generation, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered an application for relief from unfair dismissal. Jodine Harrison, the applicant, sought relief after being dismissed from her employment with Hair Generation, the respondent. The primary contention was whether the dismissal was unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant alleged that the dismissal was due to her involvement in protected industrial activities, specifically her role in union activities, which contravened the provisions protecting employees from adverse action for such involvement.

The court was required to determine whether the dismissal of Jodine Harrison was indeed unfair, considering the balance of relevant factors. This involved scrutinising the circumstances of the dismissal, the reasons provided by Hair Generation, and whether there was a valid and lawful reason for the termination. The court also had to consider if the dismissal was procedurally fair, including whether proper procedures were followed and if the applicant was given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. Furthermore, the court assessed if the dismissal was a genuine and legitimate action under the Fair Work Act.

The court found that the dismissal of Jodine Harrison was unfair. It was determined that the applicant's involvement in union activities was a significant factor in her termination, which was not a valid reason for dismissal under the Act. Additionally, the court found that the process leading to the dismissal was not procedurally fair, as the applicant was not adequately informed of the allegations nor given a reasonable opportunity to respond. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the applicant, granting her the relief sought. The court ordered that Jodine Harrison be reinstated to her previous position with Hair Generation and that she be compensated for the period of lost earnings.

Jodine Harrison v Hair Generation

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established