Chen Foo Lum v BPC Cladding Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 2665

[2025] FWC 2665

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Chen Foo Lum
v

BPC Cladding Pty Ltd

(U2025/12855)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BELL MELBOURNE, 11 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative – application has no reasonable prospects of success.

1. On 7 August 2025, Mr Chen Foo Lum made an unfair dismissal application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

1. For the following reasons I am satisfied that Mr Lum’s application has no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed.

1. Mr Lum stated in his application that he commenced employment with BPC Cladding Pty Ltd on 13 May 2025 and that his dismissal took effect on 28 July 2025.

1. Sections 382 and 383 of the Act provide that a person is only eligible to make an unfair dismissal application if they have completed a minimum period of employment before their dismissal. Section 383 defines the minimum employment period to be either 6 months or 12 months, depending on whether the respondent was a small business employer at the time of the dismissal. On the information provided by Mr Lum, his period of employment was less than 6 months.

1. On 11 August 2025, Commission staff emailed Mr Lum informing him that he had not served the applicable minimum employment period based on the information that he had provided. The email directed Mr Lum to file evidence to show that he had served the minimum employment period. That correspondence also warned Mr Lum that if he did not contact the Commission within 14 days, his application may be dismissed without further notice.

1. That same day, Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Lum by phone call. Mr Lum could not be reached and a voicemail were left requesting him to contact the Commission.

1. On 28 August 2025, a final attempt to contact Mr Lum was made by email, which required a response by 5 September 2025.

1. Mr Lum has not responded to the Commission’s multiple attempts to contact him in relation to his Form F2 application. 

Section 587 – General Principles

1. Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative in the early stages of the proceedings. Protracted proceedings can be avoided when there is no reasonable prospect of an outcome other than the dismissal of the application.

1. The power under s.587 should be used with caution, particularly if the matter involves complex questions of fact or law.[1] An application should not be dismissed under s.587 unless it is very clear that there are no reasonable prospects of success and the power under s.587 is not available if there are disputed facts that could affect the outcome of the proceedings.

1. Importantly, applicants must be given a fair opportunity to show that their application does in fact have some reasonable prospects of success.

Does Mr Lum’s application have any reasonable prospects of success?

1. The Commission cannot consider the fairness of Mr Lum’s dismissal until it is clear that he is eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim.

1. The information provided by Mr Lum indicates that he is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because he was employed for less than six months.

1. I am satisfied that Mr Lum’s claim has no reasonable prospect of success and that it is appropriate to dismiss his application. I make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Chen Foo Lum on 7 August 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] See generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [11]-[16].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR791546>