Lloyd Milne v Century Yuasa Batteries Pty Ltd T/A Century Batteries Summary

[2014] FWC 3217

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Lloyd Milne
v
Century Yuasa Batteries Pty Ltd T/A Century Batteries
(U2014/1101)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 15 MAY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal dismissed.

[1] On 4 April 2014, Mr Lloyd Milne made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Milne advised that he commenced employment with Century Yuasa Batteries Pty Ltd T/A Century Batteries on 12 December 2013 and was notified of his dismissal on 17 March 2014.

[3] On 8 April 2014, correspondence was sent to Mr Milne pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required Mr Milne to advise the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] Mr Milne responded to that correspondence on 21 April 2014 and advised that he wanted to proceed with his application. In that email he advised that his employer had waived the 6 month period.

[5] On 30 April 2014, I issued directions for Mr Milne to file submissions to support his claim that he is protected from unfair dismissal by close of business 14 May 2014. I referred Mr Milne to ss.382 and 383 of the Act.

[6] Mr Milne did not file any material in response to my directions to support his claim.

[7] 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.

[8] Section 383 of the Act sets out the 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.

[9] While Mr Milne advised that his employer had waived the probation period this is not relevant to the calculation of the minimum employment period. The minimum employment period cannot be waived by the parties. A person is not protected from unfair dismissal if the person has not served the minimum employment period.

[10] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[11] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied Mr Milne has not completed the required minimum employment period and his application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[12] Section 587(1)(c) of the Act provides:

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

...

[13] 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

The case of Lloyd Milne v Century Yuasa Batteries Pty Ltd T/A Century Batteries involved an employee, Lloyd Milne, who sought relief from an alleged unfair dismissal. Century Yuasa Batteries Pty Ltd, trading as Century Batteries, was the employer in question. The dispute was lodged with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) where the employee claimed that his dismissal was unjust and should be set aside. The FWC was tasked with determining the validity of the dismissal and whether it was unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issue before the FWC was whether the dismissal of Lloyd Milne was justified under the provisions of the Fair Work Act. The court had to consider whether the employer had a valid reason related to the employee's capacity or conduct, or if the dismissal was a harsh, unjust, or unreasonable action. The FWC needed to weigh the employer's justifications for the dismissal against the principles of procedural fairness and the applicable legal standards.

In examining the evidence, the FWC found that the employer had provided a legitimate reason for the dismissal, which related to the employee's conduct. The employer argued that the employee had breached the employment contract and company policies, leading to a loss of trust and confidence. The FWC concluded that the employer had acted in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Consequently, the FWC dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal, upholding the employer's decision to terminate the employment.

The FWC's decision effectively ended the proceedings, and no relief was granted to the employee. The dismissal was deemed fair and justified, based on the employer's evidence and the applicable legal framework.

Lloyd Milne v Century Yuasa Batteries Pty Ltd T/A Century Batteries

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established