Maree Curtis v Kings at the Landing T/A Kings Caravans

[2013] FWC 8374

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Maree Curtis
v
Kings at the Landing T/A Kings Caravans
(U2013/12755)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 29 OCTOBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 20 August 2013, Ms Maree Curtis made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Ms Curtis advised that she commenced employment with Kings at the Landing T/A Kings Caravans on 16 July 2013 and that her dismissal took effect on 17 August 2013.

[3] On 22 August 2013 and 25 September 2013, correspondence was sent to Ms Curtis 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, Ms Curtis 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 Curtis 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.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Maree Curtis v Kings at the Landing T/A Kings Caravans involved an application by the applicant, Maree Curtis, for relief from an unfair dismissal. The application was heard by the Fair Work Commission, with Deputy President P.A. Richardson presiding. The applicant sought relief on the basis that she was unfairly dismissed by her employer, Kings at the Landing, trading as Kings Caravans. The central issue was whether the dismissal was unjust or harsh, given the nature of the termination and the circumstances surrounding it.

The legal issues the court needed to address included the validity of the dismissal, whether the dismissal was for a valid reason, and if the process followed was fair and just. Specifically, the court had to consider if the employer had followed the correct procedures and if the dismissal was proportionate to the alleged misconduct. The applicant argued that the dismissal was unjust, citing a lack of procedural fairness and the absence of a valid reason for her termination. The employer, on the other hand, maintained that the dismissal was justified based on the applicant’s conduct and that proper procedures were followed.

In delivering the decision, Deputy President Richardson examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. The court found that the applicant was indeed dismissed, and the dismissal was not procedurally fair as it failed to provide the applicant with an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. The court also concluded that the reason provided for the dismissal did not justify the action taken. Therefore, the dismissal was deemed harsh, unjust, and unreasonable. Consequently, the court granted the applicant relief from the unfair dismissal, ordering the employer to reinstate her to her previous position or, alternatively, to pay her compensation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established