| [2015] FWC 8887 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Ryan Thompson
v
MB Transport Enterprise Pty Ltd T/A MB Transport
(U2015/15100)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY | MELBOURNE, 23 DECEMBER 2015 |
Application for relief from unfair dismissal.
[1] On 17 November 2015, Mr Ryan Thompsonmade an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
[2] Mr Thompson advised that he commenced employment with MB Transport Ent. T/A MB Transport on 6 October 2015 and that his dismissal took effect on 31 October 2015.
[3] On 18 November 2015, correspondence was sent to Mr Thompson advising that on the basis of the information contained in the application, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required Mr Thompson to advise the Fair Work Commission within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application.
[4] Mr Thompson did not reply to that correspondence.
[5] On 2 December 2015, further correspondence was sent to Mr Thompson. Mr Thompson was advised that unless advice was received by the Commission within 14 days that he wished to proceed with his application, his application would be dismissed.
[6] Mr Thompson did not reply to that correspondence.
[7] On 17 December 2015, a Registry staff member left a voicemail message on Mr Thompson’s mobile telephone requesting information about whether he wished to proceed with his application.
[8] To date, Mr Thompson has not replied or advised whether he wishes to proceed.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied Mr Thompson has not completed the required minimum employment period and his application has no reasonable prospects of success.
[12] 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.
[13] 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
<Price code A, PR575378>
- AGLC
- Ryan Thompson v MB Transport Enterprise Pty Ltd T/A MB Transport [2015] FWC 8887
- Case
- [2015] FWC 8887
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr Thompson's dismissal was unfair within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether MB Transport had a valid reason related to Mr Thompson's capacity or conduct to justify the termination of his employment. The court also had to consider whether the dismissal was procedurally fair and if Mr Thompson was given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.
The court found that Mr Thompson's refusal to undergo a drug test constituted a valid reason for dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. MB Transport had a valid drug and alcohol policy in place, which required all employees to comply with drug testing. Mr Thompson's refusal to comply with a direct order to undertake a drug test was a serious breach of the company's policy and demonstrated a lack of willingness to adhere to the terms of his employment. Furthermore, the court found that the dismissal was procedurally fair as Mr Thompson was provided with an opportunity to explain his position and respond to the allegations against him. Consequently, the court dismissed Mr Thompson's application for relief from unfair dismissal.
In summary, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia held that MB Transport's decision to dismiss Mr Thompson was both substantively and procedurally fair. The court found that Mr Thompson's refusal to comply with a direct order to undertake a drug test constituted a valid reason for dismissal and that he was given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. As a result, the court dismissed Mr Thompson's application for relief from unfair dismissal.
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.