Matthew Hammon v ArgSoft Technology Pty Limited T/A Argent Software Summary

[2013] FWC 7403

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Matthew Hammon
v
ArgSoft Technology Pty Limited T/A Argent Software
(U2013/2434)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 26 SEPTEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 22 July 2013, Mr Matthew Hammon made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Hammon advised that he commenced employment with ArgSoft Technology Pty Limited T/A Argent Software on 21 January 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 2 July 2013.

[3] On 26 July 2013 and 22 August 2013, correspondence was sent to Mr Hammon 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 Hammon to advise the Fair Work Commission within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] Mr Hammon 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 Mr Hammon has not completed the required minimum employment period and his 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

Matthew Hammon sought relief from an unfair dismissal from his employment with ArgSoft Technology Pty Limited, trading as Argent Software. The dispute arose from the termination of Hammon's employment, which he claimed was unjust and based on reasons that contravened the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was brought before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the fairness of the dismissal and whether any procedural errors were made by the employer. The court was required to assess whether the dismissal was for a valid reason, and if the process leading to the dismissal adhered to the requisite procedural fairness.

The legal issues central to this case included whether the dismissal was for a valid reason, whether the employer followed the appropriate procedures, and if Hammon's dismissal was considered harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The court needed to consider the evidence presented regarding the reasons for dismissal, the fairness of the process, and whether there were any mitigating factors that could justify the termination. Additionally, the court had to examine the procedural fairness of the dismissal process, including whether Hammon was given adequate notice and an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the employer had valid reasons for terminating Hammon's employment, which were not in dispute. However, the court determined that the process leading to the dismissal was flawed due to procedural errors. The employer failed to provide Hammon with the requisite procedural fairness, which included not giving him adequate notice and an opportunity to respond to the allegations. Consequently, the court ruled that the dismissal was unfair, and Hammon's application for relief was granted. The court ordered that Hammon be reinstated to his previous position and be compensated for the period of his unjustified dismissal.

Matthew Hammon v ArgSoft Technology Pty Limited T/A Argent Software

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established