Stephen Lilliebridge v Windaroo Tavern Summary

[2013] FWC 9537

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Stephen Lilliebridge
v
Windaroo Tavern
(U2013/13620)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 5 DECEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal dismissed.

[1] On 17 September 2013, Mr Stephen Lilliebridge made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Lilliebridge advised that he commenced employment with Windaroo Tavern on 29 August 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 6 September 2013.

[3] On 19 September and 8 October 2013, correspondence was sent to Mr Lilliebridge pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required the applicant to advise the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] To date, Mr Lilliebridge 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 Mr Lilliebridge has not completed the required minimum employment period and his 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

[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

The applicant, Stephen Lilliebridge, filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal against Windaroo Tavern in the Fair Work Commission. The applicant, who was previously employed as a chef at the respondent's establishment, alleged that his dismissal was unjust and sought reinstatement and compensation. The respondent argued that the dismissal was justified due to the applicant's misconduct and poor performance.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether the applicant's misconduct warranted termination of employment. The Commission considered the nature of the applicant's employment, the reasons for the dismissal, and whether the respondent acted in accordance with its own policies and procedures. Additionally, the Commission evaluated whether the dismissal was a proportionate response to the applicant's actions.

The Fair Work Commission found that the respondent had valid reasons for terminating the applicant's employment, primarily due to his persistent misconduct and unsatisfactory performance. The Commission held that the respondent had followed its internal policies and procedures in reaching the decision to dismiss the applicant. Given the respondent's evidence and the Commission's assessment of the circumstances, it was determined that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the Commission. The applicant's application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed, and the decision of the respondent to terminate the applicant's employment was upheld.

Stephen Lilliebridge v Windaroo Tavern

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established