Steven Flovick v Great Cuts Hair and Beauty Summary

[2014] FWC 3009

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Steven Flovick
v
Great Cuts Hair and Beauty
(U2014/4535)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 8 MAY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 11 February 2014, Mr Steven Flovick made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Flovick advised that he commenced employment with Great Cuts Hair and Beauty in August 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 13 January 2014.

[3] On 14 February 2014 and 10 March 2014, correspondence was sent to Mr Flovick 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 Flovick 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 Flovick 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

(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

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved Steven Flovick, who sought relief from his dismissal from Great Cuts Hair and Beauty. Flovick, a former employee of the salon, contended that his dismissal was unfair and sought reinstatement or compensation. Great Cuts Hair and Beauty argued that the dismissal was justified under the Fair Work Act. The Commission was tasked with determining the fairness of the dismissal based on the evidence and arguments presented by both parties.

The primary legal issues before the Commission included whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether there were valid reasons for the termination. The Commission had to assess the reasons provided by Great Cuts Hair and Beauty for the dismissal, the procedural fairness of the dismissal process, and whether the dismissal was proportionate to the alleged misconduct. Additionally, the Commission considered whether Flovick's dismissal had a detrimental effect on his career prospects and personal circumstances.

In its decision, the Commission found that the dismissal was indeed harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The reasons provided by Great Cuts Hair and Beauty did not sufficiently justify the termination, and the process lacked procedural fairness. The Commission determined that the dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct and had a significant negative impact on Flovick's career and personal life. Based on these findings, the Commission ordered reinstatement of Flovick to his former position, along with compensation for lost wages and entitlements.

Steven Flovick v Great Cuts Hair and Beauty

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established