Brock Beresford v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Limited

[2025] FWC 2649

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Brock Beresford
v

Mt Arthur Coal Pty Limited

(U2025/9665)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

CANBERRA, 8 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application dismissed under s.587(1)(c).

On 10 June 2025 Mr Brock Beresford (Applicant) made an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 alleging that he had been unfairly dismissed from his employment with Mt Arthur Coal Pty Limited (Respondent).

The Applicant stated in the application that he commenced employment with the Respondent on 3 November 2024 and that his dismissal took effect on 21 May 2025.

The Respondent raised a jurisdictional objection, contending that the Applicant had not completed the minimum employment period required under s.383 of the Act and therefore not a person protected from unfair dismissal within the meaning of s.382 of the Act.

The Respondent submitted that the Applicant's employment commenced on 11 December 2024, and provided a letter of offer of employment in support of this contention. The letter expressly stated that the Applicant’s employment was to commence on 11 December 2024.

If the employment commenced on 11 December 2024 and ended on 21 May 2025, the Applicant would have completed 5 months and 11 days of employment. This falls short of the minimum 6-month employment period required under section 383(a) for an employer that is not a small business employer.

On 27 August 2025, the Commission wrote to the parties in relation to the jurisdictional issue. The Applicant was invited to confirm, by 1 September 2025, whether he accepted the Respondent’s stated commencement date of 11 December 2024. If he did not agree, he was invited to provide reasons and any evidence to support his asserted commencement date of 3 November 2024.

On 2 September 2025, the Applicant’s representative informed the Commission that they had been unable to obtain instructions from the Applicant.
Later on 2 September 2025, the Commission wrote to the parties advising that if no response was received from the Applicant by 5 September 2025, the Commission would proceed on the basis that the Applicant commenced employment on 10 December 2024, and the application would be dismissed accordingly.
On 5 September 2025, the Applicant’s representative again advised that they were unable to obtain instructions from the Applicant.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the Respondent’s evidence that the Applicant’s employment commenced on 11 December 2024, as supported by the offer of employment letter.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Applicant was employed for a period of less than 6 months as at the date the dismissal took effect, and therefore had not completed the minimum employment period required under s.383(a) of the Act. It follows that the Applicant does not meet the criteria under section 382 to be a person protected from unfair dismissal.

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 this Act; or
(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that the application has no reasonable prospects of success and that it is appropriate to dismiss the application under s.587(1)(c) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be separately issued.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) dealt with an unfair dismissal application filed by Brock Beresford against Mt Arthur Coal Pty Limited. The applicant alleged that his dismissal on 21 May 2025 was unfair. The employer contested the claim by asserting that the applicant had not completed the minimum employment period required for protection under the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer provided evidence suggesting that the applicant's employment actually began on 11 December 2024, rather than the 3 November 2024 date claimed by the applicant. This discrepancy meant that the applicant had been employed for less than the statutory six months, thus not meeting the criteria for unfair dismissal protection.

The FWC had to determine whether the applicant had completed the requisite employment period as per section 383 of the Fair Work Act. The jurisdictional issue hinged on the precise date of commencement of the applicant’s employment, as this determined whether the statutory minimum period was met. The FWC invited the applicant to provide evidence to support his claim that he began employment on 3 November 2024. However, the applicant’s representative was unable to obtain instructions from the applicant, and no further evidence was presented. Given the lack of response and the employer’s evidence, the FWC accepted the employer’s stated commencement date of 11 December 2024. Consequently, the applicant had not met the statutory minimum employment period and did not qualify for unfair dismissal protection.

Based on the jurisdictional issue, the FWC concluded that the applicant’s dismissal application had no reasonable prospects of success. Under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act, the FWC has the authority to dismiss an application if it lacks reasonable prospects of success. The Deputy President found that, due to the applicant’s insufficient employment period, the application did not meet this criterion. Therefore, the FWC dismissed the application, and an order to this effect was issued separately. This decision underscores the importance of accurately determining the employment commencement date, as it directly impacts the eligibility for unfair dismissal protection.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established