Scott Hayden v Bylaser Australia Pty Ltd T/A Bylaser

[2014] FWC 7319

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Scott Hayden
v
Bylaser Australia Pty Ltd T/A Bylaser
(U2014/11432)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 16 OCTOBER 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 1 August 2014, Mr Scott Hayden made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Hayden advised that he commenced employment with Bylaser Australia Pty Ltd T/A Bylaser on 10 February 2014 and that his dismissal took effect on 28 July 2014. During the conversation with the Fair Work Commission’s Registry Officer, Mr Hayden confirmed his previous employer employed more than 15 employees.

[3] On 5 August 2014, correspondence was sent to Mr Hayden pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required Mr Hayden to advise the Commission within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] On 29 September 2014, further correspondence was sent to Mr Hayden allowing a further 14 days in which to reply, after which time the application would be dismissed.

[5] To date, Mr Hayden did not reply to that correspondence.

[6] 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.

[7] 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.

[8] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied Mr Hayden has not completed the required minimum employment period and his application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[9] 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.

[10] 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 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia recently heard an application for relief from unfair dismissal brought by Scott Hayden against Bylaser Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Bylaser. Mr Hayden sought relief under section 524 of the Fair Work Act 2009 after his dismissal by Bylaser, which was based on alleged serious misconduct and a breach of the company's code of conduct. The central issue before the Court was whether Mr Hayden's dismissal was justified under the provisions of the Fair Work Act and if it was procedurally fair.

The Court was required to determine whether the dismissal was for a valid reason connected to the employee's capacity or conduct, and whether the employer followed the correct procedures in reaching the decision to dismiss. This included assessing the evidence provided by both parties regarding the events leading to the dismissal, and whether the employer acted reasonably and fairly in terminating Mr Hayden's employment. Additionally, the Court considered the employer's code of conduct and whether Mr Hayden's actions constituted a serious breach that warranted dismissal.

After reviewing the evidence, the Court found that Bylaser had valid reasons to dismiss Mr Hayden, as his conduct did indeed constitute serious misconduct and a breach of the company's code of conduct. The Court was satisfied that Bylaser followed the correct procedural steps in reaching its decision, including providing Mr Hayden with an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. Consequently, the Court concluded that the dismissal was both valid and procedurally fair, and dismissed Mr Hayden's application for relief from unfair dismissal.

The Court's final orders were that the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed, and Mr Hayden was to bear Bylaser's costs of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established