Aimee Anders v Rise Early Learning - [2025] FWC 3032

[2025] FWC 3032

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Aimee Anders
v

Rise Early Learning

(U2025/12037)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 9 OCTOBER 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 23 July 2025, Ms Aimee Anders 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 Ms Anders’ application has no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed.

In her Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application Ms Anders indicated that she commenced employment with Rise Early Learning on 13 January 2025 and that her dismissal took effect on 24 June 2025. On the information provided by Ms Anders, she was employed for 5 months, 1 week and 4 days.

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 Ms Anders the period of employment was less than 6 months.

Commission staff attempted to contact Ms Anders on 31 July and 12 August 2025 by telephone and email regarding the Minimum Employment Period.

Ms Anders responded, however did not provide any additional relevant information regarding whether she had served the minimum employment period.

To date Ms Anders has not provided any further information that supports her eligibility to make the application.

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 Ms Anders’ application have any reasonable prospects of success?

The Commission cannot consider the fairness of Ms Anders’ dismissal until it is clear that she is eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim.

The information provided by Ms Anders on her Form F2 application strongly indicates that she is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Aimee Anders v Rise Early Learning and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FWC 3032
Decision Date: 9 OCTOBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aimee Anders filed an unfair dismissal application against Rise Early Learning under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Anders alleged that she was dismissed from her employment on 24 June 2025, having commenced her employment with Rise Early Learning on 13 January 2025. The Fair Work Commission, under Deputy President Easton, was tasked with determining whether Anders' application had reasonable prospects of success. Specifically, the court needed to assess if Anders had completed the requisite minimum employment period before her dismissal, a requirement under sections 382 and 383 of the Act.

The legal issue before the court was whether Anders' employment period satisfied the minimum employment criteria set out in the Act. Section 382 specifies that an employee must have served a minimum employment period before being eligible to lodge an unfair dismissal claim. Section 383 further defines this period as either 6 months or 12 months, contingent on whether the employer was a small business at the time of the dismissal. Anders' Form F2 application indicated that she had been employed for 5 months, 1 week, and 4 days, falling short of the 6-month threshold. Despite attempts by Commission staff to contact Anders for additional information, she did not provide any evidence to substantiate her eligibility for the application.

The court found that Anders' application had no reasonable prospects of success due to her failure to meet the minimum employment period requirement. According to section 587 of the Act, the Commission has the authority to dismiss an application if it is evident that there are no reasonable prospects of success. The court exercised this power with caution, considering that the matter did not involve complex factual or legal disputes. Anders was given ample opportunity to provide evidence supporting her eligibility but did not do so. Consequently, the court dismissed Anders' application on the Commission's initiative, ruling that there were no reasonable prospects of success.

Orders