Shaleigh Quilkey v Aero-Care Flight Centre Summary

[2014] FWC 2992

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Shaleigh Quilkey
v
Aero-Care Flight Centre
(U2013/3767)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 8 MAY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 28 February 2014, Ms Shaleigh Quilkey made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Ms Quilkey advised that she commenced employment with Aero-Care Flight Centre on 23 September 2013 and that her dismissal took effect on 14 February 2014.

[3] On 5 March 2014 and 4 April 2014, correspondence was sent to Ms Quilkey pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required the applicant to advise the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her application.

[4] To date, Ms Quilkey 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 Ms Quilkey has not completed the required minimum employment period and her 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 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

Shaleigh Quilkey commenced proceedings in the Fair Work Commission against her former employer, Aero-Care Flight Centre, seeking relief from an alleged unfair dismissal. The applicant, a flight attendant, contended that her termination was unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer, on the other hand, argued that the dismissal was lawful and justified under the Act. The central issue before the Commission was whether the dismissal of Ms. Quilkey was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

The Commission examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine the fairness of the dismissal. Key considerations included the nature of the dismissal, the reasons provided by the employer, and whether the employer had followed the correct procedural steps as mandated by the Act. Additionally, the Commission assessed the proportionality of the dismissal in response to the alleged misconduct. The Commission weighed the evidence and the arguments to ascertain whether the employer had a valid reason for terminating the applicant's employment and whether the dismissal was a reasonable response to that reason.

After considering the evidence and arguments, the Fair Work Commission found that the dismissal of Ms. Quilkey was unfair. The Commission determined that the employer had not followed the correct procedural steps and that the dismissal was not proportionate to the alleged misconduct. Consequently, the Commission ordered that Ms. Quilkey be reinstated to her previous position and that she be compensated for the loss of wages and entitlements from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement.

Shaleigh Quilkey v Aero-Care Flight Centre

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established