| [2023] FWC 3359 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Caleb Cheeseman
v
Systems Cabling Australia Pty Ltd
(U2023/11492)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 15 DECEMBER 2023 |
Application for relief from unfair dismissal – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.
On 20 November 2023, Mr Caleb Cheeseman (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).
Mr Cheeseman advised in his Form F2 – Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that he commenced employment with Systems Cabling Australia Pty Ltd on 21 August 2023 and that his dismissal took effect on 16 November 2023.
On 23 November 2023, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Cheeseman on his nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left requesting that he contact the Commission. Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Cheeseman’s nominated email address advising him that, on the basis of the information provided in his Form F2, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Mr Cheeseman 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.
On 6 December 2023, as the required documentation was not yet received, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Cheeseman on his nominated telephone number. However, Mr Cheeseman could not be reached. A voicemail message was left advising Mr Cheeseman that, on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, he had not served the minimum employment period and requesting that he contact the Commission. To date, Mr Cheeseman has not replied to the Commission’s correspondence or attempted to make contact.
Section 382 of the FW Act provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if they have completed a period of employment. 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 material before the Commission indicates Mr Cheeseman has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act, I am satisfied the application has no reasonable prospect of success. As such, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act. An Order[1] to this effect will be issued with this decision.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] PR769445.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR769444>
- AGLC
- Caleb Cheeseman v Systems Cabling Australia Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 3359
- Case
- [2023] FWC 3359
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issue before the Fair Work Commission was whether Mr Cheeseman had met the minimum employment period requirement, which is six months for employers who are not small businesses. Given that Systems Cabling Australia Pty Ltd is not a small business, the Commission assessed whether Mr Cheeseman had been continuously employed for six months leading up to his dismissal. The Commission found that he had not, as he was employed for less than six months.
The Fair Work Commission found that the application had no reasonable prospect of success because Mr Cheeseman had not completed the minimum employment period as required by the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the application was dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the Act. The Commission also noted that Mr Cheeseman did not respond to multiple attempts to contact him for further evidence or clarification.
The Fair Work Commission ordered that the application be dismissed and that an order to this effect be issued. This decision underscores the importance of meeting the minimum employment period requirement for protection against unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act.
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.