[2014] FWC 623 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Rueben Hale
v
ASH Pty Ltd T/A Vocational Training Australia
(U2013/16187)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY | MELBOURNE, 24 JANUARY 2014 |
Application for relief from unfair dismissal.
[1] On 22 November 2013, Mr Rueben Hale made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
[2] Mr Hale advised that he commenced employment with ASH Pty Ltd T/A Vocational Training Australia on 27 May 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 15 November 2013.
[3] On 27 November and again on 17 December 2013, correspondence was sent to Mr Hale 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 Hale 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 Hale 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 section 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
<Price code A, PR547153>
- AGLC
- Rueben Hale v Ash Pty Ltd T/A Vocational Training Australia [2014] FWC 623
- Case
- [2014] FWC 623
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues for the court were whether Hale's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable and whether the employer had just cause under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court needed to examine the employer's justification for the dismissal and assess whether the dismissal met the criteria for unfairness.
The court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the circumstances surrounding Hale's employment and the reasons provided by Ash Pty Ltd for his termination. The employer argued that Hale's dismissal was due to a significant breach of trust and a failure to adhere to the company's policies. However, the court found that the employer had not provided adequate evidence to support the claim of breach of trust and that the dismissal process lacked procedural fairness. Consequently, the court ruled that Hale's dismissal was unfair and granted his application for relief.
The Fair Work Commission ordered that Ash Pty Ltd pay Hale compensation for the unfair dismissal and mandated the reinstatement of his employment, subject to Hale's availability and willingness to return to work.
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.