DECISION

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

Tameika Leonard
v
Integrity Leader Training Pty Ltd T/A Veterans4Youth
(U2018/2607)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 8 JUNE 2018

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 14 March 2018, Ms Tameika Leonard made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Following an unsuccessful conciliation on 12 April 2018, the matter was allocated to me to determine Integrity Leader Training Pty Ltd T/A Veterans4Youth’s (the Respondent) jurisdictional objection that Ms Leonard’s employment did not meet the minimum employment period.

[3] Ms Leonard’s application states that she commenced employment with the Respondent on 13 March 2017 and that her dismissal took effect on 21 February 2018. In its Form F3, Employer Response, the Respondent submitted that it is a small business employer with fewer than 15 employees. This was not disputed by Ms Leonard.

[4] On 17 April 2018, correspondence was sent to Ms Leonard indicating that, based on the information contained in her application and the Employers Response, it appeared she may not have served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required Ms Leonard to file a statement within seven days to support her claim of having served the minimum employment period.

[5] On 1 May 2018, correspondence was sent to Ms Leonard noting she had previously been directed to file a statement in the Commission but had not done so. She was given until 4:00pm on Friday 4 May 2018 to respond and was advised that in the absence of any material being received her application may be dismissed.

[6] Final attempts were made to contact Ms Leonard by telephone on 29 May 2018 and 5 June 2018.

[7] To date Ms Leonard has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

[8] 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.

[9] 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.

[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

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[11] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied Ms Leonard has not completed the required minimum employment period and accordingly her application has no reasonable prospects of success. Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the Act.

[12] An Order to that effect will issue with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The Federal Court of Australia heard an application by Tameika Leonard against Integrity Leader Training Pty Ltd, trading as Veterans4Youth. The dispute centred on Leonard's claim of unfair dismissal, where she alleged that her termination was unjust and contrary to the principles outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. Leonard argued that the dismissal was either harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, or it was not procedurally fair.

The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the dismissal was justified under the act and whether the procedures followed by Veterans4Youth in terminating Leonard's employment were in accordance with the requirements of natural justice and procedural fairness. The court needed to determine if the reasons provided for the dismissal were valid, if the employer provided adequate opportunity for Leonard to respond to the allegations, and if the decision to terminate was proportionate to the alleged misconduct.

In its judgment, the court scrutinised the evidence presented by both parties and the fairness of the termination process. The court concluded that the employer had not demonstrated that the dismissal was for a valid reason related to Leonard's capacity or conduct, nor had they provided procedural fairness. The employer failed to substantiate the claims against Leonard, and the process lacked the necessary elements of fairness. Consequently, the court ruled that Leonard's dismissal was unfair. The court ordered that Leonard's employment be reinstated and that she be compensated for the period of lost wages.

Tameika Leonard v Integrity Leader Training Pty Ltd T/A Veterans4Youth

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established