| [2023] FWC 2002 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Aaron Bailey
v
Ozroll
(U2023/6531)
| COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 16 AUGUST 2023 |
Application for relief from unfair dismissal – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.
On 18 July 2023, Mr Aaron Bailey made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).
Mr Bailey advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that he commenced employment with Ozroll (the Respondent) on 17 July 2023 and that his dismissal took effect on 17 July 2023.
On 20 July 2023, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Bailey on his nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left by the Commission advising Mr Bailey that he had not served the minimum employment period and requested that he contact the Commission.
Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Bailey’s nominated email address advising Mr Bailey that, on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Mr Bailey to file any documents or other evidence to support his claim that he had served the required minimum employment period. This correspondence also warned that if Mr Bailey did not contact the Commission within 14 days, the application may be dismissed without further notice.
On 20 July 2023, Mr Bailey emailed the Commission and advised that he had worked for the Respondent for one day. Later this day, the Commission emailed Mr Bailey providing him further details on the minimum employment period. Mr Bailey then sent a reply email to this correspondence informing the Commission he had worked for a period of 10 hours with the Respondent.
The Commission further attempted to contact Mr Bailey this day by phoning Mr Bailey’s nominated contact number, but Mr Bailey could not be reached. A voicemail message was left for Mr Bailey requesting that he contact the Commission.
On 2 August 2023, the Commission further attempted to contact Mr Bailey on his nominated telephone number. However, Mr Bailey could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting that Mr Bailey call back the Commission by close of business 3 August 2023.
Section 382 of the FW Act provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if they have completed a period of employment. I am satisfied Mr Bailey has not completed the required minimum employment period.
Section 383 of the FW Act sets out the minimum employment period 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.
Section 587(1) of the FW Act provides as follows:
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 prospect of success.
As Mr Bailey has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act the application has no reasonable prospect of success. As such, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR765100>
- AGLC
- Aaron Bailey v Ozroll [2023] FWC 2002
- Case
- [2023] FWC 2002
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue at hand was whether Mr Bailey’s application met the criteria for filing an unfair dismissal claim. According to section 382 of the FW Act, an individual must complete a certain period of employment to be eligible to lodge an unfair dismissal application. Specifically, section 383 defines the minimum employment period as six months for employers who are not classified as small business employers. The Commission needed to ascertain whether Mr Bailey's one-day employment met this criterion. Furthermore, section 587(1) of the FW Act empowers the Commission to dismiss an application if it has no reasonable prospect of success. Given Mr Bailey's insufficient employment period, the Commission found that his application lacked a reasonable prospect of success.
The Commission held that Mr Bailey had not completed the requisite minimum employment period, as stipulated by the FW Act. Consequently, the application for unfair dismissal was dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the FW Act, as it had no reasonable prospect of success. The Commission's decision was based on the clear statutory requirement that an individual must serve at least six months of continuous employment to be eligible to claim unfair dismissal. Since Mr Bailey only worked for Ozroll for one day, the application did not meet this statutory requirement. Thus, the Commission dismissed the application as it was not made in accordance with the Act and lacked a reasonable prospect of success.
No further orders were made by the Commission. The dismissal of the application was based solely on the insufficiency of the employment period.
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.