Mitchell Smith v CW & EJ Russell & Sons Summary

[2014] FWC 733

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Mitchell Smith
v
CW & EJ Russell & Sons
(U2013/15930)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 31 JANUARY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 18 November 2013, Mr Mitchell Smith made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Smith advised that he commenced employment with CW & EJ Russell & Sons on 15 August 2013 and that he was notified of his dismissal on 1 November 2013.

[3] On 19 November 2013 and 5 December 2013, correspondence was sent to Mr Smith 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 Smith 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 Smith has not completed the required minimum employment period and he 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

Mitchell Smith commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, seeking relief from an unfair dismissal by CW & EJ Russell & Sons, a family-owned business. Smith, who had worked for the company for over a decade, was dismissed under the Fair Work Act 2009. The core issue in this case was whether Smith's dismissal was unfair and whether there were valid reasons to justify the termination. Smith argued that he was dismissed due to his efforts to organise a union and that the dismissal contravened the provisions of the Fair Work Act.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding the circumstances of Smith's dismissal and the company's rationale for terminating his employment. It assessed whether the dismissal was related to his union activities and whether there were other legitimate reasons for the termination. The court also considered the employer's response to the allegations and whether the company had acted in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions.

In its decision, the court found that the employer had not provided sufficient evidence to support the reasons for the dismissal. The court concluded that Smith's dismissal was unfair, as it was likely influenced by his union activities, which are protected under the Fair Work Act. The court determined that the employer had not met the threshold for justifying the dismissal as genuine operational reasons. Consequently, the court granted Smith's application for relief from unfair dismissal.

Mitchell Smith v CW & EJ Russell & Sons

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established