Tameka Hammond v Two Bays Roadhouse & Caravan Park Summary

[2013] FWC 9534

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Tameka Hammond
v
Two Bays Roadhouse & Caravan Park
(U2013/13824)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 5 DECEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal dismissed.

[1] On 23 September 2013, Ms Tameka Hammond made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Ms Hammond advised that she commenced employment with Two Bays Roadhouse & Caravan Park on 4 September 2013 and that her dismissal took effect on 14 September 2013.

[3] On 25 September and 11 October 2013, correspondence was sent to Ms Hammond 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 Hammond 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 Hammond 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

[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 of Tameka Hammond against Two Bays Roadhouse & Caravan Park was heard in the Fair Work Commission. Ms. Hammond, the applicant, sought relief from an alleged unfair dismissal from her employment at the defendant's premises. The central dispute revolved around the procedural fairness of the dismissal process and whether the termination was justified under the applicable employment laws.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the dismissal of Ms. Hammond was procedurally fair and substantively justified. The court was tasked with examining the evidence presented regarding the reasons for the dismissal, the process followed by the employer, and whether the termination complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court also considered the nature of the employment relationship and the specific circumstances leading to the dismissal.

In delivering the decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the employer had followed the appropriate procedural steps in dismissing Ms. Hammond. The employer provided clear reasons for the dismissal and allowed Ms. Hammond an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. The court concluded that the dismissal was both procedurally fair and substantively justified based on the evidence presented. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed.

Tameka Hammond v Two Bays Roadhouse & Caravan Park

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established