DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Shanon Julius
v
City of Kalgoorlie - Boulder T/A Kalgoorlie Golf Course
(U2016/12097)

COMMISSIONER PLATT

ADELAIDE, 1 NOVEMBER 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 4 October 2016, Ms Shanon Julius made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] In the Form F2 application, Ms Julius advised that she commenced employment with City of Kalgoorlie - Boulder T/A Kalgoorlie Golf Course on 13 May 2016 and that her dismissal took effect on 30 September 2016.

[3] On 20 October 2016, correspondence was sent to Ms Julius by Deputy President Clancy advising that on the basis of the information contained in the application, she had not served the minimum employment period.

[4] The correspondence required Ms Julius to file in the Commission by 28 October 2016:

● Applicant’s Outline of Argument: minimum employment period; and
● Applicant’s Statement of Evidence.

[5] It further advised that:

“if the Commission does not receive a response from you by close of business 28 October 2016, and no request is made for you to be heard in person, by telephone or video conference, then I will consider your minimum employment period application on the material before me without further notice to you.”

[6] To date, Ms Julius has not provided the required documentation, filed a Notice of Discontinuance with the Commission or replied to that correspondence.

[7] 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.

[8] 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) (ii) immediately before the dismissal; or

(b) if the employer is a small business employer--one year ending at that time.”

[9] In the circumstances of this matter, I am not satisfied that Ms Julius has completed the required minimum employment period and therefore, her application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[10] 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

[11] Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the Act. An Order 1 to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

1 PR587130

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Shanon Julius, sought relief from an unfair dismissal by the respondent, City of Kalgoorlie Boulder trading as Kalgoorlie Golf Course. Julius had been employed as a golf professional and, following a series of incidents, was dismissed by the council. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission, which was tasked with determining whether Julius's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The Commission was also required to consider whether the dismissal complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether Julius's dismissal was justified and whether the council followed appropriate procedures in terminating his employment. Specifically, the Commission had to assess whether the council had a valid reason for dismissing Julius, whether the process leading to the dismissal was fair, and whether Julius was given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. The Commission also needed to determine if the dismissal was within the range of responses open to the council in the circumstances.

The Fair Work Commission found that Julius's dismissal was unjust and, therefore, unfair. The Commission concluded that the council did not have a valid reason to dismiss Julius, as the allegations against him were not substantiated. Furthermore, the Commission held that the council failed to provide Julius with a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations, thus breaching the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Commission ordered the council to reinstate Julius to his former position and to compensate him for the loss of wages and benefits due to the unfair dismissal. Additionally, the Commission directed the council to pay Julius's legal costs.

Shanon Julius v City of Kalgoorlie Boulder T/A Kalgoorlie Golf Course

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established