Carla Mose v Farhan Shahzad

Case [2022] FWC 2351


[2022] FWC 2351

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Carla Mose

v

Farhan Shahzad

(U2022/7973)

cOMMISSIONER bISSETT

MELBOURNE, 5 SEPTEMBER 2022

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

  1. On 1 August 2022, Ms Carla Mose (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).

  1. The Applicant advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that she commenced employment with Farhan Shahzad on 01 July 2022 and that her dismissal took effect on 01 August 2022.

  1. On 02 August 2022, the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant on her nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left requesting a call back to confirm dates of employment and discuss minimum employment period, contact details for respondent and payment of filling fee.

  1. Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to the Applicant’s nominated email address advising the Applicant that based on the information provided in the Form F2, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed the Applicant to file any documents and evidence to support her claim that she had served the required minimum employment period. That correspondence also warned that if the Applicant did not contact the Commission within 14 days, the application may be dismissed without further notice.

  1. As the required documentation was not received, on 23 August 2022 the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant via her nominated telephone number. However, the Applicant could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting a call back to discuss minimum employment period and further details required.

  1. To date, the Applicant has not replied to the Commission’s correspondence.

  1. Section 382 of the FW 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.

  1. In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied the Applicant has not completed the required minimum employment period and her application has no reasonable prospects of success.

  1. 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.

  1. Section 587(1) of the FW Act provides that:

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.

  1. Having regard to the circumstances of this matter I am satisfied that as the Applicant has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act, her 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 shortly.


COMMISSIONER


[1] PR745487

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR745486>

Details
AGLC
Carla Mose v Farhan Shahzad [2022] FWC 2351
Case
[2022] FWC 2351
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Carla Mose sought a remedy for unfair dismissal against Farhan Shahzad. The Applicant, Ms Mose, claimed she had been dismissed on 1 August 2022, shortly after starting employment on 1 July 2022. The Commission was tasked with determining whether Ms Mose had completed the minimum employment period as required by the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) and whether her dismissal was unfair.

The central legal issue was whether Ms Mose had served the minimum employment period before her dismissal. Under s.383 of the FW Act, the minimum employment period is six months if the employer is not a small business employer, and one year if the employer is a small business employer. Ms Mose's application for relief hinged on her completion of this period. Additionally, s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act allowed the Commission to dismiss an application if it had no reasonable prospects of success. The Commission needed to verify the Applicant's employment period and determine if the application met the legal criteria for a remedy.

The Commission found that Ms Mose had not completed the required minimum employment period, as stipulated by s.383 of the FW Act. Despite being employed for less than two months, the minimum period for a non-small business employer had not been met. Consequently, the Commission was satisfied that Ms Mose's application had no reasonable prospects of success. The application was dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act, as it was deemed to be without merit.

An Order will be issued to formalise the dismissal of Ms Mose's application for unfair dismissal.

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.