Adam Wilson v TTM Engineering Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 2725

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Adam Wilson
v

TTM Engineering Pty Ltd

(U2025/6067)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative - application has no reasonable prospects of success.

On 16 May 2025, Mr Adam Wilson made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

For the following reasons I am satisfied that Mr Wilson’s application has no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed.

In his Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application Mr Wilson did not specify the date he started employment with TTM Engineering Pty Ltd. He said: “I don’t know the exact date – 4 months” and also said that his dismissal took effect on 13 May 2025. On the information provided by Mr Wilson he was employed for approximately 4 months.

Sections 382 and 383 of the Act provide that a person is only eligible to make an unfair dismissal application if they have completed a minimum period of employment before their dismissal. Section 383 defines the minimum employment period to be either 6 months or 12 months, depending on whether the respondent was a small business employer at the time of the dismissal. On the information provided by Mr Wilson the period of employment was less than 6 months.

Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Wilson on 19 May, 3 June and 2 July 2025 by telephone, SMS and email regarding the Minimum Employment Period.

Section 587 – General Principles

Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative in the early stages of the proceedings. Protracted proceedings can be avoided when there is no reasonable prospect of an outcome other than the dismissal of the application.

The power under s.587 should be used with caution, particularly if the matter involves complex questions of fact or law (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [11]-[16] (Bond)). An application should not be dismissed under s.587 unless it is very clear that there are no reasonable prospects of success. As such the power under s.587 is not available if there are disputed facts that could affect the outcome of the proceedings.

Importantly, applicants must be given a fair opportunity to show that their application does in fact have some reasonable prospects of success.

Does Mr Wilson’s application have any reasonable prospects of success?

The Commission cannot consider the fairness of Mr Wilson’s dismissal until it is clear that he is eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim.

The information provided by Mr Wilson on his Form F2 application strongly indicates that he is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because he does not appear to have served the minimum employment period.

Mr Wilson had the opportunity to provide information that could show that he had in fact completed the minimum employment period. However Mr Wilson has not provided any information that is consistent with him having done so. Mr Wilson has also had the opportunity to put his case for consideration on all matters material to the decision to dismiss the application under s.587 (see Bond at [15]-[16]).

I am satisfied that Mr Wilson’s claim has no reasonable prospect of success within the meaning of s.587(1)(c), and that it is appropriate in the circumstances to dismiss his application on the Commission’s own initiative using the facility available in s.587(3)(a). I make the following order:

A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Adam Wilson on 16 May 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the case of Adam Wilson v TTM Engineering Pty Ltd, Mr Adam Wilson applied to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Wilson alleged that his dismissal from TTM Engineering Pty Ltd on 13 May 2025 was unfair. The primary issue before the Deputy President, Easton, was whether Wilson's application had reasonable prospects of success. This hinged on whether Wilson had completed the requisite minimum employment period before his dismissal, a requirement for eligibility to lodge an unfair dismissal claim under the Act.

The Fair Work Commission examined whether Wilson had been employed for the minimum period of six months, as stipulated by sections 382 and 383 of the Act. Wilson had indicated in his Form F2 application that his employment period was approximately four months. Despite attempts by Commission staff to contact Wilson for further clarification, no additional information was provided to substantiate a longer period of employment. Given the lack of evidence, it was clear that Wilson did not meet the minimum employment requirement, which is a threshold matter that must be resolved before the Commission can consider the fairness of the dismissal.

Deputy President Easton concluded that Wilson's application did not have reasonable prospects of success due to the lack of evidence showing that he had completed the minimum employment period. The Commission dismissed the application on its own initiative under section 587 of the Act. This decision was based on the principle that protracted proceedings should be avoided where it is evident that the outcome will be the dismissal of the application. The Deputy President noted that the power to dismiss an application under section 587 should be used cautiously, particularly when there are no disputed facts that could affect the outcome. The Deputy President ordered that Wilson's application for an unfair dismissal remedy be dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established