Veronica Allan v Opteon (Victoria) Property Group

Case [2015] FWC 1799


[2015] FWC 1799
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Veronica Allan
v
Opteon (Victoria) Property Group
(U2015/652)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 16 MARCH 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] Ms Veronica Allan alleged the termination of her employment by Opteon (Victoria) Property Group was unfair. In her application, she advised that she commenced employment on 6 August 2014 and her employment ended on 4 February 2015.

[2] An employee is required to have served six months employment (or 12 months if working for a small business) to be protected from unfair dismissal. Section 383 of the Fair Work Act 2009 provides as follows:

    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.

[3] In determining whether Ms Allan had served the minimum employment period, no assessment has been made about the merits of Ms Allan’s case. The Fair Work Commission has no discretion to waive the requirements of the Act.

Consideration

[4] On 6 March 2015, a letter was sent by email to Ms Allan advising her that on the material provided she had not been employed for the minimum period of employment. She was directed to complete the outline of argument: minimum period of employment, which she did. Ms Allan was advised that unless she requested a hearing in person, by telephone or by video that the matter was be determined initially on the material she provided.

[5] Ms Allan submitted that she was employed for 182 days, which is 26 weeks, which she says is six months and two weeks. Ms Allan provided a copy of her letter of termination dated 4 February 2015 which advised that her employment had been terminated as at that date. That letter confirmed her start date as 6 August 2014.

[6] Section 397 of the Act provides that the Commission must conduct a hearing or a conference if there are disputed facts. In this case there are no disputed facts so I have not held a conference or a hearing.

[7] Section 22 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 as it existed at 25 June 2009 1 provides as follows:

    In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears:

    ...

    (b) `Month’ shall mean calendar month;

    ...

    (g) `Calendar month’ means a period commencing at the beginning of a day of one of the 12 months of the year and ending immediately before the beginning of the corresponding day of the next month or, if there is no such corresponding day, ending at the expiration of the next month.

[8] Therefore the six month period from 6 August 2014 ends at midnight on 5 February 2015.

[9] As Ms Allan’s employment ended on 4 February 2015, she had not been employed for the minimum employment period and hence she was not protected from unfair dismissal and her application is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

 1 See s.40A of the Fair Work Act 2009

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR562057>

Details
AGLC
Veronica Allan v Opteon (Victoria) Property Group [2015] FWC 1799
Case
[2015] FWC 1799
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Veronica Allan v Opteon (Victoria) Property Group involves an application by Ms. Allan seeking relief from an unfair dismissal. The dispute centres around the termination of Ms. Allan's employment by Opteon, a property group. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an Australian federal statutory body with jurisdiction over employment disputes.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the dismissal was procedurally fair and whether it was a case of genuine redundancy. Ms. Allan argued that her dismissal was not only unfair due to procedural deficiencies but also that the redundancy was not genuine. Opteon contended that the dismissal was both procedurally fair and genuinely due to redundancy. The Commission needed to assess the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine the validity of the dismissal.

The Commission found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair because Ms. Allan was not provided with adequate notice and opportunity to respond to the allegations of misconduct. Additionally, the Commission determined that the redundancy was not genuine as Opteon had not sufficiently demonstrated that the position was genuinely no longer required. The Commission concluded that the dismissal was unfair and granted Ms. Allan relief in the form of compensation. The final orders included an order for Opteon to pay Ms. Allan compensation for the unfair dismissal.

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.