DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Anglina Ibrahim
v
Rahme Corporation Pty Ltd
(U2019/8537)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 6 SEPTEMBER 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 1 August 2019, Mrs Anglina Ibrahim made an application to the Fair Work Commission for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] In her Form F2 – Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2), Mrs Ibrahim advised that she commenced employment with Rahme Corporation Pty Ltd on 19 February 2019 and that she was notified of her dismissal on 16 July 2019, with the dismissal taking effect on the same day.

[3] On 2 August 2019, the Commission sent email correspondence to Mrs Ibrahim via her nominated email address advising that her application indicated she had not been employed for the minimum employment period required under the Act. The correspondence directed Mrs Ibrahim to file in the Commission, within 14 days, any documents or evidence to support her claim of having served the minimum employment period.

[4] On 2 August 2019, the Commission telephoned Mrs Ibrahim’s representative and a message was left asking them to call the Commission.

[5] On 21 August 2019, the Commission telephoned Mrs Ibrahim’s representative and advised that Mrs Ibrahim did not appear to meet the minimum employment period.

[6] On 30 August 2019, the Commission attempted to call Mrs Ibrahim’s representative, but the phone number was disconnected.

[7] On 4 September 2019, a message was left on Mrs Ibrahim’s mobile requesting a call back.

[8] On 4 September 2019, Mrs Ibrahim was advised by telephone that her matter would be considered by a member.

[9] Section 382 of the Act provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if they have completed a period of employment of at least the minimum employment period.

[10] Section 383 of the Act sets out the minimum employment period:

“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.”

[11] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

“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 the Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

[12] Having regard to the circumstances of the matter, I am satisfied that as Mrs Ibrahim has not completed the required minimum employment period, her application has no reasonable prospects of success. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(c) of the Act. An Order to that effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case of Anglina Ibrahim v Rahme Corporation Pty Ltd involved an application for an unfair dismissal remedy. Anglina Ibrahim sought relief from the Fair Work Commission for her dismissal from employment by Rahme Corporation Pty Ltd, claiming that the termination was unjust and unfair. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with examining the circumstances surrounding the dismissal and determining whether it was justified.

The primary legal issues before the Commission included whether the dismissal was procedurally fair, whether the employer had a valid reason for the termination, and whether the employer followed appropriate procedures. Ibrahim argued that the dismissal was unjust and that the employer failed to follow fair procedures. Conversely, Rahme Corporation Pty Ltd contended that the dismissal was justified based on her performance issues and that proper procedures were adhered to.

The Commission assessed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It found that the employer had a valid reason for terminating Ibrahim's employment due to her performance and conduct. However, the Commission determined that the employer failed to follow proper procedural steps, which led to the dismissal being considered unfair. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of Ibrahim, ordering that she be reinstated to her position or, alternatively, compensated for the unfair dismissal.

Anglina Ibrahim v Rahme Corporation Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established