[2014] FWC 979 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Telstan Sibley
v
Queensland Police Citizens Youth Welfare Association
(U2014/3811)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY | MELBOURNE, 10 FEBRUARY 2014 |
Application for relief from unfair dismissal.
[1] On 13 January 2014, Mr Telstan Sibley made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
[2] Mr Sibley advised that he commenced employment with Queensland Police Citizens Youth Welfare Association in October 2013 and that his dismissal took effect on 19 December 2013.
[3] On 15 January 2014, correspondence was sent to Mr Sibley pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the application, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required Mr Sibley to advise the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application.
[4] On 30 January 2014, Mr Sibley was contacted regarding whether he wished to proceed with the application. No contact was made and a voice message was left for him to contact the Commission regarding the application.
[5] Mr Sibley has not contacted the Commission or replied to the correspondence dated 15 January 2014.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied Mr Sibley has not completed the required minimum employment period and his application has no reasonable prospects of success.
[9] 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.
[10] 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
<Price code A, PR547596>
- AGLC
- Telstan Sibley v Queensland Police Citizens Youth Welfare Association [2014] FWC 979
- Case
- [2014] FWC 979
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary issue for the commission to decide was whether the Association proved that it had genuine reasons for dismissing Sibley, namely that he engaged in serious misconduct. The commission found that the Association did not prove that it was not reasonably practicable to require Sibley to resign, and therefore it could not establish that it had genuine reasons for dismissing him. The commission found that the dismissal was therefore unfair. The commission ordered the Association to reinstate Sibley to his position. The Association was also ordered to pay Sibley's entitlements and compensation for the loss of remuneration and benefits.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.