Rachael Stevenson v St John of God Health Care Summary

[2013] FWC 6069

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Rachael Stevenson
v
St John of God Health Care
(U2013/10611)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 26 AUGUST 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal dismissed pursuant to s.587 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[1] On 17 June 2013, an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for remedy for unfair dismissal was lodged by Ms Rachael Stevenson.

[2] The Form 2 - Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal (the Application) filed by Ms Stevenson notes they commenced employment with St John of God Health Care in October 2012 and her dismissal took effect on 28 February 2013.

[3] On 20 June 2013, correspondence was sent to Ms Stevenson pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the Form 2, she had not served the minimum employment period according to the dates noted on the Application. The correspondence required Ms Stevenson to advise the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her Application.

[4] On 8 July 2013, further correspondence was sent to Ms Dunn requiring her to advise the Commission within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her Application. To date no response has been received.

[5] Section 382 of the Act provides:

382 When a person is protected from unfair dismissal

A person is protected from unfair dismissal at a time if, at that time:

(a) the person is an employee who has completed a period of employment with his or her employer of at least the minimum employment period; and

[6] Section 383 of the Act provides:

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] Section 587 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.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3-2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

[8] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that Ms Dunn has not completed the required minimum employment period.

[9] Consequently, I have decided to dismiss the application pursuant to s.587 of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case between Rachael Stevenson and St John of God Health Care was brought before the Fair Work Commission. Rachael Stevenson, the applicant, sought relief from her dismissal on the basis that it was unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009. St John of God Health Care, the respondent, defended the dismissal, asserting it was justified and not unfair. The crux of the dispute was whether the dismissal was procedurally fair, substantively fair, or both.

The court had to decide several legal issues, including whether the dismissal was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act and the organisation's enterprise agreement. It also had to consider whether the respondent had a valid reason for the dismissal and if the process leading to the dismissal was fair and just. The court further needed to assess if the dismissal was proportionate to the offence and if there were any mitigating factors that should be considered.

The court found that the dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair. It concluded that the respondent had valid reasons for the dismissal, which were communicated to the applicant. The process followed adhered to the requirements of the Act and the enterprise agreement. The court determined that the dismissal was proportionate to the offence and did not constitute an unfair termination. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that Rachael Stevenson's application for relief from unfair dismissal be dismissed, and that the dismissal was fair and justified. The court did not award any remedies to the applicant, as it found no breach of the Fair Work Act in the dismissal process.

Rachael Stevenson v St John of God Health Care

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established