Katrina Farah v Compare Quotes T/A Trades Network CQ Summary

[2014] FWC 671

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Katrina Farah
v
Compare Quotes T/A Trades Network CQ
(U2013/15140)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 28 JANUARY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal dismissed.

[1] On 21 October 2013, Ms Katrina Farah made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Ms Farah advised that she commenced employment with Compare Quotes T/A Trades Network CQ in mid August 2013 and that her dismissal took effect on 7 October 2013.

[3] On 25 October 2013 and 21 November 2013, correspondence was sent to Ms Farah pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required the applicant to advise the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her application.

[4] To date, Ms Farah 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 Ms Farah has not completed the required minimum employment period and her 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

[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

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Katrina Farah, the applicant, brought proceedings against Compare Quotes Trading as Trades Network CQ, the respondent, seeking relief from an alleged unfair dismissal. The matter was heard by Deputy President D'Alton, who was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was indeed unfair and whether the applicant was entitled to the relief sought. The court had to address several key legal issues, including whether the dismissal was procedurally fair, whether the dismissal was for a valid reason, and whether there were any mitigating factors that should be considered. Additionally, the court had to consider the evidence presented regarding the applicant's employment history, performance, and the circumstances surrounding the dismissal.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that the respondent had followed the necessary procedures in dismissing the applicant and that the dismissal was based on valid reasons, primarily related to performance issues and conduct concerns. The court also noted that the applicant had a history of performance issues and that the respondent had provided multiple opportunities for improvement, which the applicant failed to meet. The court concluded that the dismissal was not unfair, as it was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable in the circumstances. Consequently, the application for relief from the dismissal was dismissed.

As a result of the court's decision, the respondent's application for relief from the unfair dismissal was dismissed. The court found that the dismissal was procedurally fair and was based on valid reasons, and therefore, the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought. The final orders reflect the court's determination that the dismissal was justified and that the applicant's application was without merit.

Katrina Farah v Compare Quotes T/A Trades Network CQ

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established