Charlotte Murray v Travel Money Iz

Case [2023] FWC 1999


[2023] FWC 1999

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Charlotte Murray
v

Travel Money Iz

(U2023/6500)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 16 AUGUST 2023

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

  1. On 17 July 2023, Ms Charlotte Murray 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. Ms Murray advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that she commenced employment with Travel Money Iz on 13 June 2023 and that her dismissal took effect on 13 July 2023.

  1. On 19 July 2023, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Murray on her nominated telephone number. However, Ms Murray could not be reached. A voicemail message was left by the Commission advising Ms Murray that she had not served the minimum employment period and Ms Murray was asked to contact the Commission.

  1. Later this day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Murray’s nominated email address advising Ms Murray that, on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Ms Murray to file any documents or other evidence to support her claim that she had served the required minimum employment period. This correspondence also warned that if she 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 2 August 2023, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Murray on her nominated telephone number. However, Ms Murray could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting that she contact the Commission.

  1. To date, Ms Murray has not provided any documentation in response to the Commission.

  1. 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 Ms Murray has not completed the required minimum employment period.

  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 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.

  1. As Ms Murray 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

<PR765093>

Details
AGLC
Charlotte Murray v Travel Money Iz [2023] FWC 1999
Case
[2023] FWC 1999
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered an application for relief from unfair dismissal made by Ms Charlotte Murray against her former employer, Travel Money Iz. Ms Murray had commenced employment with the company on 13 June 2023 and was dismissed on 13 July 2023. The Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) stipulates that an employee must complete a minimum employment period to be protected from unfair dismissal. Ms Murray applied for relief from unfair dismissal under section 394 of the FW Act on 17 July 2023.

The primary issue before the Commission was whether Ms Murray had completed the minimum employment period as required by section 382 of the FW Act. Under section 383, the minimum employment period is six months if the employer is not a small business employer. The Commission attempted to contact Ms Murray to seek further information, but she could not be reached. Despite multiple attempts to contact her and requests for documentation to support her claim that she had completed the required minimum employment period, Ms Murray did not provide any evidence. Consequently, the Commission was satisfied that Ms Murray had not completed the required minimum employment period.

Considering the information presented and the absence of any evidence from Ms Murray, the Commission found that her application had no reasonable prospect of success. Therefore, the application was dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the FW Act. The Commission concluded that the application was frivolous or vexatious and did not comply with the requirements of the FW 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.