DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Julie Dart
v
Gold Training
(U2014/15855)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 6 MARCH 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 11 December 2014, Ms Julie Dart made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Ms Dart advised that she commenced employment with Gold Training on 25 August 2014 and that her dismissal took effect on 10 December 2014 and she was notified of their dismissal on 10 December 2014.

[3] On 17 December 2014, correspondence was sent to Ms Dart 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 Dart to advise the Fair Work Commission within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her application. On the same date, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Dart, the call was not answered and a voice message was left.

[4] On 6 January 2015, further correspondence was sent to Ms Dart allowing a further 14 days in which to reply, after which time the application would be dismissed. On the same date, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Dart, the call was not answered and a voice message was left.

[5] To date, Ms Dart has not replied 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 Dart 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

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[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

Julie Dart filed an application for relief from an unfair dismissal against Gold Training in the Fair Work Commission. The applicant, Ms Dart, was employed as a learning and development manager by Gold Training, a company that provides vocational training and assessment services. The dismissal was the result of a series of disciplinary issues, including allegations of inappropriate conduct towards a colleague. The central dispute centred around whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

The court needed to decide if the dismissal was justified under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, it was necessary to determine if the dismissal complied with the requirements for a valid dismissal, including whether the employer followed a fair process, and if the grounds for dismissal were valid. The applicant argued that the process was flawed and that the dismissal was not proportionate to the alleged misconduct.

In its reasoning, the Commission found that the employer had not followed a fair process in handling the disciplinary matter. The process was deemed procedurally unfair because it did not provide the applicant with an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. The Commission also found that the employer failed to consider relevant mitigating factors and did not follow its own policies when handling the disciplinary process. As a result, the dismissal was deemed unfair. The Commission ordered that Ms Dart be reinstated to her former position and awarded her compensation for the loss of income and other entitlements.

Julie Dart v Gold Training

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established