Peter Thornhill v B.M Longhorn & S.S Persson T/A LiT Signs/Rentals

Case [2018] FWC 2917


[2018] FWC 2917

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Peter Thornhill

v

B.M Longhorn & S.S Persson T/A LiT Signs/Rentals

(U2018/4409)

Deputy President Dean

SYDNEY, 24 MAY 2018

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

  1. On 28 April 2018, Mr Peter Thornhill made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

  1. Mr Thornhill’s application states that he commenced employment with B.M Longhorn & S.S Persson T/A LiT Signs/Rentals (the respondent) on 27 November 2017 and that his dismissal took effect on 9 April 2018.

  1. On 3 May 2018, correspondence was sent to Mr Thornhill indicating that, based on the information contained in his application, it appeared he may not have served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required Mr Thornhill to file a statement within seven days to support his claim of having served the minimum employment period.

  1. On 16 May 2018, correspondence was sent to Mr Thornhill noting that he had previously been directed to file a statement in support of his claim that he had served the minimum employment period but had not done so. Mr Thornhill was given until 4pm, 17 May 2018, to respond. Mr Thornhill was advised that in the absence of any material being received, his application may be dismissed.

  1. On 23 May 2018, final attempts to contact Mr Thornhill by telephone were made, and messages for Mr Thornhill were left asking him to contact the Commission.

  1. To date, Mr Thornhill has not responded to the Commission.

  1. Section 382 of the Act provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if the person completed a period of employment of at least the minimum employment period.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied Mr Thornhill has not completed the required minimum employment period and accordingly his application has no reasonable prospects of success. Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the Act.

  1. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR607358>

Details
AGLC
Peter Thornhill v B.M Longhorn & S.S Persson T/A LiT Signs/Rentals [2018] FWC 2917
Case
[2018] FWC 2917
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Peter Thornhill, sought an unfair dismissal remedy against his former employers, B.M Longhorn and S.S Persson, trading as LiT Signs/Rentals. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. Thornhill alleged that his dismissal was unjust, without proper cause, and not handled in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. Longhorn and Persson argued that Thornhill's dismissal was legitimate, based on his failure to adhere to company policies and his conduct, which they claimed warranted termination.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Thornhill's dismissal was procedurally unfair and/or substantively unfair. Procedurally, the court examined whether the proper procedures were followed in the dismissal process, including whether Thornhill was given adequate notice and an opportunity to respond. Substantively, the court assessed whether the dismissal was reasonable in the circumstances, taking into account the employer's right to dismiss for poor performance or misconduct, and whether the dismissal was disproportionate to the offence.

The Fair Work Commission found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair as Thornhill was not given the opportunity to respond to the allegations against him before the decision was made. Despite this finding, the Commission concluded that the dismissal was substantively fair because Thornhill's conduct did warrant termination, and the decision was proportionate to the offence. The Commission found that Thornhill had engaged in misconduct that justified dismissal, and therefore, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.