Nicole Biggar v AMP Summary

[2014] FWC 1056

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Nicole Biggar
v
AMP
(U2013/15175)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 12 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal dismissed.

[1] On 22 October 2013, Mrs Nicole Biggar made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mrs Biggar advised that she commenced employment with AMP on 6 May 2013 and that her dismissal took effect on 8 October 2013.

[3] On 23 October 2013 and 21 November 2013, correspondence was sent to Mrs Biggar 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, Mrs Biggar 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 Biggar 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

[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

Nicole Biggar brought an application against her former employer, AMP, seeking relief from an unfair dismissal. The application was heard and ultimately dismissed by the Fair Work Commission. The primary dispute was whether Ms. Biggar's dismissal was procedurally unfair or unjust, considering the circumstances surrounding her termination.

The legal issues the court had to address were whether AMP followed the correct procedures in dismissing Ms. Biggar and whether the reasons provided for the dismissal were fair and reasonable. Ms. Biggar argued that the dismissal process was flawed and that the reasons provided were not justified. AMP, on the other hand, maintained that the dismissal was conducted in accordance with the applicable laws and that the decision was based on legitimate grounds.

The Commission, after reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, determined that AMP had followed the appropriate procedures and that the reasons for Ms. Biggar's dismissal were justified. The Commission found that Ms. Biggar's conduct warranted the termination, and that the employer had acted fairly in reaching this decision. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed.

Nicole Biggar v AMP

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established