[2014] FWC 1506 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Tyne Simpson
v
Barry Plant Rowville
(U2013/16484)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY | MELBOURNE, 4 MARCH 2014 |
Application for unfair dismissal remedy.
[1] On 3 December 2013, Miss Tyne Simpson made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
[2] Miss Simpson advised that she commenced employment with Barry Plant Rowville on 23 September 2013 and that her dismissal took effect on 10 November 2013.
[3] On 31 December 2013 and 16 January 2014, correspondence was sent to Miss Simpson 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, Miss Simpson 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 Miss Simpson 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
(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
<Price code A, PR548309>
- AGLC
- Tyne Simpson v Barry Plant Rowville [2014] FWC 1506
- Case
- [2014] FWC 1506
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved assessing the employer's justification for the dismissal, examining the procedural steps taken, and evaluating whether the dismissal was proportionate and reasonable. Simpson argued that the reasons for dismissal were not valid and that the process lacked procedural fairness. Barry Plant Rowville contended that the dismissal was justified on the grounds of misconduct and that the dismissal process was fair and reasonable.
The court found that the employer had provided evidence of misconduct that warranted a dismissal. However, it also determined that the employer had not followed the correct procedural steps and that the dismissal was not a reasonable management action in the circumstances. The court concluded that while the reason for dismissal was valid, the process was flawed, leading to an unfair dismissal. Consequently, the court ordered that the dismissal be deemed unfair and directed that appropriate remedies be provided to the applicant.
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.