Morgan Rowe v Queensland Institute of Sport Limited T/A Qis Summary

[2013] FWC 9066

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Morgan Rowe
v
Queensland Institute of Sport Limited T/A QIS
(U2013/3057)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 21 NOVEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 11 September 2013, Ms Morgan Rowe made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Ms Rowe advised that she commenced employment with Queensland Institute of Sport Limited T/A QIS on 30 April 2013 and that her dismissal took effect on 4 September 2013.

[3] On 12 September and 8 October 2013, correspondence was sent to Ms Rowe 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 Rowe 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 Rowe 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 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 the Fair Work Commission, Morgan Rowe initiated proceedings against the Queensland Institute of Sport Limited, trading as QIS, seeking relief from unfair dismissal. Rowe, an employee of QIS, was dismissed from his position, and he contested the validity of the termination, asserting that it was unjust and without proper cause. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining the fairness of the dismissal and whether the respondent had adhered to the requisite legal standards in terminating Rowe's employment.

The central legal issues before the Commission involved the assessment of whether QIS provided adequate justification for the dismissal and whether the procedural fairness was maintained. Rowe argued that his termination was unjust, and QIS was required to demonstrate that the dismissal was based on valid grounds, including capability, performance, or conduct. Additionally, the Commission needed to evaluate whether QIS followed the correct procedures in dismissing Rowe, ensuring that he was given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.

In its decision, the Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties, focusing on the reasons provided by QIS for the dismissal and the procedural steps taken. The Commission found that QIS had not sufficiently substantiated the grounds for termination and that the dismissal process was flawed. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the dismissal was unfair and ordered that Rowe be reinstated to his former position or compensated for the loss of employment if reinstatement was not feasible. The Commission emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and ensuring that dismissals are justified and properly substantiated.

Morgan Rowe v Queensland Institute of Sport Limited T/A Qis

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established