Mia Francis v Dr John Goodman T/A Creative Smiles Summary

[2014] FWC 735

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Mia Francis
v
Dr John Goodman T/A Creative Smiles
(U2013/3405)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 30 JANUARY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 15 October 2013, Ms Mia Francis made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Ms Francis advised that she commenced employment with Dr John Goodman T/A Creative Smiles on 10 May 2013 and that her dismissal took effect on 2 October 2013.

[3] On 8 November 2013 and 5 December 2013, correspondence was sent to Ms Francis 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 Francis 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 Francis 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 section 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

The application before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia concerns a dispute between Mia Francis and Dr John Goodman, trading as Creative Smiles, regarding the fairness of her dismissal from employment. Mia Francis, an employee of Dr Goodman’s dental practice, applied for relief from unfair dismissal after being terminated. The court was tasked with determining whether her dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable under the Fair Work Act 2009. The central issues included whether the dismissal was for valid reasons, whether procedural fairness was observed, and whether the dismissal was a proportionate response to the circumstances.

The court examined the reasons for the dismissal, which Dr Goodman attributed to breaches of workplace policies and a failure to meet performance expectations. Mia Francis argued that the dismissal was unfair, contending that she had not been given adequate notice or opportunity to remedy the alleged shortcomings. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties, including workplace policies, performance reviews, and communications between Mia Francis and Dr Goodman. It also assessed the proportionality of the dismissal in light of the circumstances and whether the dismissal was a reasonable management action.

After careful consideration of the evidence and the legal framework, the court found that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The court was satisfied that there were valid reasons for the dismissal, which were communicated to Mia Francis. It also found that procedural fairness was observed, as Mia Francis was given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. The court concluded that the dismissal was proportionate to the circumstances and that Dr Goodman had acted reasonably in terminating Mia Francis’ employment. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed.

Mia Francis v Dr John Goodman T/A Creative Smiles

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established