DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Lydia Johns
v
The Trustee For Team Stone Group Trust T/A Ouverture Sport Horses
(U2021/6214)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 13 AUGUST 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 15 July 2021, Miss Lydia Johns made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). Miss Johns alleged she was unfairly dismissed by The Trustee For Team Stone Group Trust T/A Ouverture Sport Horses (the Respondent) on 28 June 2021.

[2] Miss Johns advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that she commenced employment with The Trustee For Team Stone Group Trust T/A Ouverture Sport Horses on 29 March 2021 and that her dismissal took effect on 28 June 2021.

[3] On 16 July 2021 the Commission attempted to contact Miss Johns on her nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left advising Miss Johns that she had not served the minimum employment period.

[4] Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Miss Johns’s nominated email address advising Miss Johns that on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Miss Johns to file any documents/evidence to support her claim that they had served the required minimum employment period. That correspondence also warned that if Miss Johns did not contact the Commission within 14 days, the application may be dismissed without further notice.

[5] As the required documentation was not received, on 29 July 2021 the Commission attempted to contact Miss Johns via her nominated telephone number. However, Miss Johns could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting that she contact the Commission.

[6] To date, Miss Johns has not replied to the Commission’s correspondence.

[7] Section 382 of the FW 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 FW Act sets out the minimum employment period as follows:

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.

[9] Section 587(1) of the FW Act provides that:

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

[10] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter I am satisfied that as Miss Johns has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act, her application has no reasonable prospect of success. As such, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act. An order 1 to this effect will be issued with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR732739.

Lydia Johns brought a claim against The Trustee for Team Stone Group Trust T/A Ouverture Sport Horses in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred around an allegation of unfair dismissal. Johns claimed that her termination from employment was unjust, contrary to the principles outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. The Trustee for Team Stone Group Trust, representing Ouverture Sport Horses, contested the claim, asserting that the dismissal was lawful and in accordance with the applicable employment laws.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Johns' dismissal was unfair and, if so, what remedy should be awarded. The court had to determine whether the Trustee had just cause for terminating Johns' employment, whether the process followed was procedurally fair, and whether any available remedy should be granted under the Act. The court's analysis focused on the specific circumstances surrounding the termination, including the reasons provided by the Trustee and the procedural steps taken.

The Fair Work Commission found that the Trustee did not provide adequate justification for Johns' dismissal and that the process lacked procedural fairness. The evidence indicated that the Trustee failed to follow the correct procedures, and the reasons given for termination were not substantial. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the dismissal was indeed unfair. As a remedy, the Commission ordered the Trustee to reinstate Johns to her previous position, an order which was conditional upon Johns' acceptance and the Trustee's willingness to re-employ her. Additionally, the Trustee was directed to pay compensation for the period of unlawful termination.

Lydia Johns v The Trustee for Team Stone Group Trust T/A Ouverture Sport Horses

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established