Kellie Hatcher v Sandra Matesic T/A Liberated Hair

[2013] FWC 7390

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Kellie Hatcher
v
Sandra Matesic T/A Liberated Hair
(U2013/10452)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 25 SEPTEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 13 June 2013, Ms Kellie Hatcher made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Ms Hatcher advised that she commenced employment with Sandra Matesic T/A Liberated Hair on 13 February 2013 and that her dismissal took effect on 23 May 2013.

[3] On 9 July 2013 and 8 August 2013 correspondence was sent to Ms Hatcher 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 Hatcher to advise the Fair Work Commission within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her application.

[4] Ms Hatcher 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 Hatcher 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

(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

The case of Kellie Hatcher v Sandra Matesic T/A Liberated Hair involved an application for relief from unfair dismissal. Hatcher sought relief from a decision made by her employer, Matesic, who operated a hairdressing salon under the trading name Liberated Hair. Hatcher's employment was terminated by Matesic, and she contested the dismissal as unfair. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Hatcher's dismissal was unfair within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009. Hatcher argued that her dismissal was unjust and not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Matesic, on the other hand, contended that the dismissal was justified and not unfair. The court had to determine whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether there were valid reasons for the termination of Hatcher's employment.

The Fair Work Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant legal principles. The Commission found that Hatcher's dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. It concluded that Matesic had valid reasons for terminating Hatcher's employment, which included performance issues and breaches of workplace policies. The Commission also noted that Hatcher had been given adequate opportunities to address these issues but failed to do so. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed.

As a result of the decision, the Fair Work Commission upheld the dismissal of Kellie Hatcher by Sandra Matesic T/A Liberated Hair. The Commission found that the dismissal was justified and not unfair, and therefore, Hatcher's application for relief was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established