Kimberley Grandison v Disco Knights Pty Ltd Summary

[2013] FWC 10069

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Kimberley Grandison
v
Disco Knights Pty Ltd
(U2013/14310)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 20 DECEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 9 October 2013, Miss Kimberley Grandison made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Miss Grandison advised that she commenced employment with Disco Knights Pty Ltd on 20 June 2013 and that her dismissal took effect on 1 October 2013.

[3] On 9 October 2013 and again on 7 November 2013, correspondence was sent to Miss Grandison 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, Miss Grandison 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 Miss Grandison 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 matter of Kimberley Grandison against Disco Knights Pty Ltd was heard in the Fair Work Commission. Ms Grandison, an employee of Disco Knights, sought relief from her dismissal which she claimed was unfair. The dispute centred on the termination of Ms Grandison's employment and the grounds upon which it was made. The Fair Work Commission was required to determine whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and if Ms Grandison's rights under the Fair Work Act were infringed.

The legal issues before the Commission involved the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Fair Work Act, specifically those relating to unfair dismissal. The central questions were whether the dismissal was justified under the act, and if the employer had followed proper procedures in terminating Ms Grandison's employment. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether Ms Grandison's dismissal was a genuine redundancy, which would exempt it from unfair dismissal claims.

The Fair Work Commission found that the employer had failed to follow the required procedural steps before dismissing Ms Grandison, thus rendering the dismissal unfair. The employer did not provide adequate notice or an opportunity for Ms Grandison to respond to the allegations against her. The Commission also determined that the employer's claim of redundancy was not substantiated, as there was no genuine redundancy situation. Consequently, the dismissal was deemed to breach the provisions of the Fair Work Act.

As a result of the Commission's findings, Ms Grandison was granted relief from her unfair dismissal. The Commission ordered that she be reinstated to her previous position or, alternatively, be paid compensation equivalent to what she would have earned until the date of her dismissal. Additionally, the employer was required to compensate Ms Grandison for any procedural breaches.

Kimberley Grandison v Disco Knights Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established