REASONS FOR DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Megan Tran
v
Ad Logic or Martian Logic T/A MyRecruitmentPlus
(U2016/14079)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE

SYDNEY, 21 DECEMBER 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 15 December 2016 I dismissed the application of Ms Megan Tran for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Ms Tran has asked for my reasons for decision. They are very straightforward.

[3] In her application Ms Tran stated that she was employed on 10 November 2016 and dismissed on 14 November 2016.

[4] On 2 December 2016 I wrote to Ms Tran in the following terms:

“Dear Ms Tran,

Re: U2016/14079 – Tran v MyRecruitmentPlus

It is apparent from your application that you may not have met the minimum employment period requirements prescribed by the Fair Work Act 2009. An application for an unfair dismissal remedy cannot succeed unless the period of employment is greater than 6 months.

Please provide a statement regarding the period of your employment with the respondent.

On the basis of the application filed by yourself, any response filed by the respondent and your statement, I will decide if your application can proceed to arbitration.
Please provide your statement within 14 days of the date of this letter. If no statement is received I will consider your application on the material before me without further notice to you.”

[5] In an email dated 2 December 2016 Ms Tran confirmed that she was employed by the respondent for one day.

[6] Ms Tran was, on the facts of the own application, employed for less than the minimum employment period.

[7] The Fair Work Commission does not have jurisdiction to extend a remedy to an employee employed for less than the minimum employment period.

[8] I therefore dismissed her application.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved an application by Megan Tran for relief from an unfair dismissal. The respondent, Ad Logic or Martian Logic trading as MyRecruitmentPlus, was the employer. The primary dispute centred on the fairness of the termination of Tran's employment, focusing on whether the dismissal was justified under the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues that the Commission needed to address included whether the employer had a valid reason related to Tran's capacity or conduct, or some other valid reason, for terminating her employment. Additionally, the Commission considered whether the dismissal process was procedurally fair and whether Tran had the opportunity to respond to the allegations against her.

In delivering its decision, the Commission noted that Tran had been dismissed for alleged misconduct, including inappropriate conduct towards a client and failure to meet performance standards. The employer provided evidence supporting these allegations, including witness statements and performance reviews. The Commission found that the employer had established a valid reason for dismissal. It also determined that the dismissal process was procedurally fair, as Tran had been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations through a formal meeting and written response. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed.

Megan Tran v Ad Logic or Martian Logic T/A MyRecruitmentPlus

REASONS FOR DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established