| [2023] FWC 1692 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Breanna Vojvodich
v
Madame Ma’s Proprietary Limited
(U2023/5283)
| COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 13 JULY 2023 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.
On 14 June 2023 Breanna Vojvodich (the Applicant) 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).
The Applicant advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that they commenced employment with Madame Ma’s Proprietary Limited in “Mid-January to Early February” and that their dismissal took effect on 13 June 2023.
On 19 June 2023, the Commission emailed correspondence to the Applicant’s nominated email address advising the Applicant that, on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, they had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed the Applicant to file any documents to support their claim that they had served the required minimum employment period. That correspondence also warned that if they did not contact the Commission within 14 days the application may be dismissed without further notice.
Later that day, the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant on their nominated telephone number. However, the Applicant could not be reached. A voice message was left requesting the Applicant contact the Commission as the information provided in their application suggested that they may not have met the minimum employment period. An SMS notification was also sent to the Applicant’s nominated telephone number requesting that they contact the Commission.
As the required documentation was not received, on 29 June 2023 the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant on their nominated telephone number regarding the minimum employment issue. However, the Applicant could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting the Applicant contact the Commission.
To date the Applicant 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 the Applicant 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 the Applicant 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
<PR764179>
- AGLC
- Breanna Vojvodich v Madame Ma's Proprietary Limited [2023] FWC 1692
- Case
- [2023] FWC 1692
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the Commission had to decide was whether the Applicant had completed the requisite minimum employment period as stipulated in section 383 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Act specifies that if the employer is not a small business employer, the minimum employment period is six months. Given that Madame Ma’s Proprietary Limited was not identified as a small business employer, the critical point was whether the Applicant had been employed for at least six months prior to her dismissal. The Commission further needed to assess if the application was frivolous or vexatious, or if it had any reasonable prospect of success.
Upon reviewing the information provided by the Applicant, the Commission found that she had not served the minimum employment period of six months. Despite multiple attempts to contact the Applicant and requests for additional documentation to support her claim, the Commission did not receive any response. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the application had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed it under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009.
The Commission's final order was that the application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed due to the Applicant not meeting the minimum employment period requirement.
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.