Narelle Fox v Highway Traffic Control Pty Ltd

[2013] FWC 7398

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Narelle Fox
v
Highway Traffic Control Pty Ltd
(U2013/11097)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 25 SEPTEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 3 July 2013, Mrs Narelle Fox made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mrs Fox advised that she commenced employment with Highway Traffic Control Pty Ltd on 15 April 2013 and that her dismissal took effect on 27 June 2013.

[3] On 3 July 2013 and 22 August 2013, correspondence was sent to Mrs Fox pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required Mrs Fox to advise the Fair Work Commission within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her application.

[4] Mrs Fox 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 Mrs Fox 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

Narelle Fox brought an application against Highway Traffic Control Pty Ltd for relief from an unfair dismissal. The primary dispute revolves around the termination of her employment by Highway Traffic Control Pty Ltd, with Ms. Fox arguing that the dismissal was unjust and contrary to the principles outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Commission heard the application.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the termination of Ms. Fox’s employment was justified and if the employer followed appropriate procedures as required by the Fair Work Act. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the dismissal constituted an unfair action and whether it complied with the provisions for genuine operational reasons as stipulated in the Act.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission meticulously examined the evidence presented by both parties. The Commission found that the employer had failed to provide adequate justification for the dismissal, and the process leading up to the termination did not adhere to the procedural fairness expected under the Act. The Commission concluded that the dismissal was unfair and ordered the reinstatement of Ms. Fox to her previous position, along with compensation for the period of unlawful termination. This comprehensive review and decision underscore the importance of following statutory requirements in employment termination processes.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established