| [2023] FWC 1457 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Alec Moses
v
Boral Construction Materials Limited
(U2023/4333)
| COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 20 JUNE 2023 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.
On 19 May 2023 Mr Alec Moses 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 Moses advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that he commenced employment with Boral Construction Materials Limited on 5 December 2022 and that his dismissal took effect on 11 May 2023.
On 24 May 2023 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Moses on his nominated telephone number. The call was unsuccessful as an automated message advised that the number was not in service.
Later that day the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Moses’s nominated email address advising Mr Moses that, on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Mr Moses to file any documents or other evidence to support his claim that he had served the required minimum employment period. That correspondence also warned that if he did not contact the Commission within 14 days his application may be dismissed without further notice.
As the required documentation was not received, on 6 June 2023 the Commission emailed Mr Moses on his nominated email address reminding him that to proceed with his application, he needed to show that they had served the minimum employment period. That correspondence also warned Mr Moses that the application could be dismissed if no response was received by 7 June 2023.
To date Mr Moses has not replied to the Commission’s correspondence.
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 Moses 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 Moses 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
<PR763362>
- AGLC
- Alec Moses v Boral Construction Materials Limited [2023] FWC 1457
- Case
- [2023] FWC 1457
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the Commission was whether Moses had satisfied the minimum employment period requirement to bring a claim for unfair dismissal. The Commission assessed whether Moses had completed six months of employment with Boral, as stipulated in section 383 of the FW Act. The Commission noted that Moses had been employed by Boral since 5 December 2022 and had been dismissed on 11 May 2023, a period of less than six months. As Moses had not provided evidence to substantiate that he had completed the required employment period, the Commission found that his application had no reasonable prospect of success.
The Commission reasoned that without evidence of the minimum employment period, Moses's claim was not viable under section 382 of the FW Act, which protects employees from unfair dismissal after a certain period of employment. The Commission concluded that since Moses had not demonstrated that he had served the minimum employment period, his application was dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the FW Act. The Commission's decision was based on the lack of evidence from Moses to support his claim, and the failure to respond to multiple communications from the Commission regarding this matter.
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.