Matthew Reid v Civic Flow T/A Civic Pub Summary

[2014] FWC 1512

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Matthew Reid
v
Civic Flow T/A Civic Pub
(U2014/3581)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 4 MARCH 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 6 January 2014, Mr Matthew Reid made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Reid advised that he commenced employment with Civic Flow T/A Civic Pub on 31 July 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 16 December 2013.

[3] On 10 January 2014 and 30 January 2014, correspondence was sent to Mr Reid pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required the applicant to advise the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] To date, Mr Reid 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 Reid 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 Reid brought an application against Civic Flow T/A Civic Pub, seeking relief from an unfair dismissal. The dispute arose from Reid's employment termination following an incident at the pub. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The core legal issues before the Commission were whether Reid's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and if there were grounds for his reinstatement or compensation.

The Commission examined the circumstances surrounding Reid's dismissal, including the employer's conduct, the severity of the alleged misconduct, and the procedural fairness of the dismissal process. Reid argued that his dismissal was unjust due to the lack of a formal investigation and the employer's failure to follow its own policies. The employer contended that Reid's actions warranted immediate termination and that the dismissal was proportionate to the severity of the incident.

The Commission found that Reid's dismissal was unjust due to the lack of a proper investigation and adherence to the employer's own disciplinary procedures. It held that the employer's decision to terminate Reid without a formal process was unreasonable. Consequently, the Commission ordered the employer to reinstate Reid to his previous position and compensate him for the period of lost wages. Additionally, it directed the employer to review and comply with its disciplinary policies in future disciplinary matters.

Matthew Reid v Civic Flow T/A Civic Pub

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established