Michael Archer v Freemantle Stockfeeds Summary

[2013] FWC 9954

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Michael Archer
v
Freemantle Stockfeeds
(U2013/14323)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 19 DECEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal dismissed.

[1] On 9 October 2013, Mr Michael Archer made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Archer advised that he commenced employment with Freemantle Stockfeeds on 15 April 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 27 September 2013.

[3] On 11 October and 29 October 2013, correspondence was sent to Mr Archer 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 Archer 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 Archer 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

[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

In Michael Archer v Freemantle Stockfeeds, Archer brought an application against Freemantle Stockfeeds, his former employer, alleging unfair dismissal. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where Archer sought relief under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court was tasked with determining whether Freemantle Stockfeeds had valid grounds for dismissing Archer, and if the dismissal was procedurally fair and substantively justified.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the Fair Work Act and whether the dismissal complied with the procedural and substantive requirements for fairness. The court examined whether Freemantle Stockfeeds had a valid reason related to Archer's capacity or conduct, and whether the employer followed the correct process in terminating Archer's employment. Furthermore, the court needed to assess if the dismissal was a proportionate response to the circumstances.

The court found that Freemantle Stockfeeds had legitimate reasons for the dismissal, rooted in Archer's conduct and capacity. It was determined that the employer had followed the appropriate procedural steps, including providing Archer with notice and an opportunity to respond. The court concluded that the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair, as it was a reasonable action in the circumstances. Accordingly, the court dismissed Archer's application for relief from unfair dismissal.

Michael Archer v Freemantle Stockfeeds

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established