Paul Bohlmann v Stevens Group Summary

[2014] FWC 1225

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Paul Bohlmann
v
Stevens Group
(U2014/5)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 18 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 2 January 2014, Mr Paul Bohlmann made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Bohlmann advised that he commenced employment with Stevens Group on 25 November 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 6 December 2013.

[3] On 6 January 2014 and 23 January 2014, correspondence was sent to Mr Bohlmann 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 Bohlmann 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 Bohlmann has not completed the required minimum employment period and his 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

The case of Paul Bohlmann versus Stevens Group was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The applicant, Paul Bohlmann, sought relief from his dismissal which he claimed was unfair. The Stevens Group, the respondent, defended the dismissal on the basis that it was conducted in accordance with the applicable legal standards.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the dismissal of Mr Bohlmann was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable and whether there was procedural unfairness in the way the dismissal was handled. The court needed to examine the fairness of the dismissal in the context of the entire course of employment and the circumstances leading up to the termination. It also needed to consider whether the respondent complied with procedural fairness when dismissing the applicant.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission concluded that the dismissal of Mr Bohlmann was unfair. The court found that the employer's conduct leading up to the dismissal, including a failure to provide adequate support and opportunities for the applicant to improve his performance, contributed to an overall harsh, unjust, or unreasonable outcome. Additionally, the court found that there were procedural deficiencies in how the dismissal was carried out, further supporting the conclusion of unfairness. The court emphasised that the employer had an obligation to assist the employee in meeting performance expectations before resorting to dismissal.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that Mr Bohlmann be reinstated to his previous position with the Stevens Group and that he be compensated for the period of lost wages from the date of dismissal until the date of reinstatement.

Paul Bohlmann v Stevens Group

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established