Michael Martanovic v Shaws Darwin Transport Summary

[2013] FWC 9333

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Michael Martanovic
v
Shaws Darwin Transport
(U2013/14555)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY

PERTH, 28 NOVEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] Mr Michael Martanovic (the Applicant) lodged an application for unfair dismissal remedy (the application) on 17 October 2013. The Applicant claims that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment with Shaws Darwin Transport Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] The Applicant states in the application that he was employed from 19 April 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 9 October 2013.

[3] The Applicant was advised on 18 October 2013 through a letter from the Fair Work Commission (the FWC) that he did not appear to have satisfied the minimum employment period. He was also advised that in those circumstances the FWC had no jurisdiction to deal with the application. Attached to that letter was a Form - F50 Notice of Discontinuance. He was requested to advise the FWC within 14 days of his intentions. He did not respond to that letter. Another letter was sent to the Applicant on 8 November 2013 requesting a response as to whether he intended to lodge a Notice of Discontinuance or to proceed with the application. The Applicant responded by email on 8 November 2013 advising that he wished to proceed with the matter. As a consequence the application was allocated to me to deal with.

[4] On 22 November 2013 I wrote to the Applicant asking him to confirm that he was employed by the Respondent from 19 April 2013 and that the day his dismissal took effect was 9 October 2013. The Applicant responded that he confirmed that he was employed by the Respondent between those two dates.

[5] I therefore find that the Applicant was employed by the Respondent for a period less than a qualifying period prescribed by s.383 the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act). The Applicant therefore is not a person protected from unfair dismissal [s.382(a) of the FW Act] as he has not completed a period of employment with his employer of at least the minimum employment period.

[6] The application is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court was presented with an application for relief from unfair dismissal brought by Michael Martanovic against Shaws Darwin Transport. Martanovic, who was employed as a driver by Shaws Darwin Transport, alleged that his dismissal was unjust and unfair, seeking reinstatement or compensation. Shaws Darwin Transport, the respondent, argued that the dismissal was justified and in accordance with the applicable laws and the company's policies.

The legal issues before the court involved whether Martanovic's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether the company had just cause for his termination. The court was required to consider the principles of fairness as outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009, including whether the dismissal was a proportionate response to the circumstances. The court also needed to assess the evidence presented regarding the reasons for the dismissal and whether the company had followed proper procedures.

The court carefully examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It determined that Martanovic's dismissal did not meet the threshold for being deemed unfair. The evidence suggested that the company had followed its policies and had a legitimate reason for the termination. The court found that the dismissal was proportionate to the circumstances, and therefore, Martanovic's application for relief was dismissed. The court did not order any reinstatement or compensation for Martanovic, affirming the company's decision.

Michael Martanovic v Shaws Darwin Transport

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established