Leonard Tan v Latrobe Community Health Service Limited, Kaylene Rogers, Christie Smith Summary

[2024] FWC 2917

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Leonard Tan
v

Latrobe Community Health Service Limited, Kaylene Rogers, Christie Smith

(C2024/6966)

COMMISSIONER MIRABELLA

MELBOURNE, 21 OCTOBER 2024

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application dismissed.

For the reasons given on the transcript earlier today, the Applicant was not an employee of Latrobe Community Health Service Limited. The Applicant was placed on vocational placement with Latrobe Community Health Service Limited as a requirement of the University of Melbourne’s Doctor of Dentistry program in which he was enrolled. His placement fulfilled all the requirements of vocational placement under the Fair Work Act 2009.[1] It was not in dispute that there was no paid employment or an employment contract in place between the Applicant and Latrobe Community Health Service Limited. As the Applicant was not an employee, and there was no employment to be terminated, the Applicant was not a person dismissed under s.365. Accordingly, these factors indicate that the Commission has no jurisdiction in this matter. The application was therefore dismissed.

COMMISSIONER

[1] Fair Work Act 2009, s.12.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leonard Tan brought a claim before the Fair Work Commission against Latrobe Community Health Service Limited, Kaylene Rogers, and Christie Smith, alleging wrongful dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant, who was enrolled in the Doctor of Dentistry program at the University of Melbourne, claimed that his vocational placement with Latrobe Community Health Service Limited constituted employment. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the applicant had standing to bring the claim as he was not an employee within the meaning of the Act.

The central issue before the Commission was whether Leonard Tan was an employee of Latrobe Community Health Service Limited, and if he was dismissed, as claimed. The Commission considered the specific statutory definitions under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the applicant's placement met the criteria for employment. Notably, the Commission examined whether there was a paid employment or an employment contract in place between the applicant and Latrobe Community Health Service Limited.

The Commission found that the applicant was not an employee of Latrobe Community Health Service Limited, as his placement was a vocational requirement of his university program and did not constitute an employment relationship. As there was no paid employment or contract, the applicant could not be considered dismissed under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Consequently, the Commission held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application. The application was dismissed on this basis.

No further orders were made by the Commission beyond dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction.

Leonard Tan v Latrobe Community Health Service Limited, Kaylene Rogers, Christie Smith

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established