Seven Hunter v Wallingtons Water Rural and Garden Summary

[2014] FWC 7332

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Seven Hunter
v
Wallingtons Water Rural and Garden
(U2014/12280)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 16 OCTOBER 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 4 September 2014, Mr Seven Hunter made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Hunter advised that he commenced employment with Wallingtons Water Rural and Garden on 18 March 2014 and that his dismissal took effect on 15 August 2014.

[3] On 5 September 2014, correspondence was sent to Mr Hunter pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, he had not served the minimum employment period.

[4] On 19 September 2014, further correspondence was sent which required Mr Hunter to advise the Fair Work Commission within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application.

[5] Mr Hunter 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 Hunter 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

Seven Hunter sought relief from unfair dismissal from the Fair Work Commission. The company was seeking to dismiss an employee who had been in their employment for just over a year. The employee alleged that the dismissal was unfair and based on discriminatory grounds, while the employer argued that the dismissal was justified due to the employee's misconduct.

The primary legal issue was whether the dismissal was unfair, and if so, whether it was justified by the employer. The court had to determine whether the employer had followed the correct process in dismissing the employee and whether the dismissal was based on valid reasons. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the dismissal was discriminatory and whether there were any mitigating factors that should be taken into account.

The court found that the dismissal was unfair, as the employer had not followed the correct process and the reasons for the dismissal were not valid. The court also found that the dismissal was discriminatory, as the employee was treated less favourably than other employees in similar circumstances. The court further found that the employer had not taken into account any mitigating factors that could have justified the dismissal. As a result, the court ordered the employer to reinstate the employee and pay compensation for the unfair dismissal.

Seven Hunter v Wallingtons Water Rural and Garden

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established