Cheyenne Rowley v Rubyroom Beauty Pty Limited

[2025] FWC 356

[2025] FWC 356

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Cheyenne Rowley
v

Rubyroom Beauty Pty Limited

(U2024/12235)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON SYDNEY, 7 FEBRUARY 2025

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

1. On 14 October 2024 Ms Cheyenne Rowley made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

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

1. Ms Rowley indicated in her Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application that she commenced employment with Rubyroom Beauty Pty Limited on 16 September 2024 and that her dismissal took effect on 3 October 2024. On the information provided by Ms Rowley, she was employed for almost 17 days.

1. Sections 382 and 383 of the Act provide that a person can only be 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 Ms Rowley the period of employment was less than 6 months.

1. Commission staff tried to contact Ms Rowley on the following dates:

·   18 October 2024 by phone and email

·   21 October 2024 by letter and SMS

·   11 November 2024 by phone

·   31 December 2024 by email

1. Staff sought further information from Ms Rowley about whether she had served the minimum employment period.

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. The relevant provisions of s.587 are:

“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.

…

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a)   on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

1. The power under s.587 should be used with caution, particularly if the matter involves complex questions of fact or law (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [11]-[16] (Bond)). An application should not be dismissed under s.587 unless it is very clear that there are no reasonable prospects of success. As such 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 Ms Rowley’s application have any reasonable prospects of success?

1. The Commission cannot consider the fairness of Ms Rowley’s dismissal until it is satisfied that she is eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim.

1. The information provided by Ms Rowley on her Form F2 application strongly indicates that she is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because she does not appear to have served the minimum employment period.

1. Ms Rowley had the opportunity to provide information that could show that she had in fact completed the minimum employment period. However Ms Rowley has not provided any information that is consistent with having served the minimum employment period.

1. I am satisfied that Ms Rowley has had the opportunity to put her case for consideration on all matters material to the making of the decision to dismiss her application under s.587 (see Bond at [15]-[16]).

1. I am satisfied that Ms Rowley’s claim has no reasonable prospect of success within the meaning of s.587(1)(c), and that it is appropriate in the circumstances to dismiss her application on the Commission’s own initiative using the facility available in s.587(3)(a).

1. I have decided to dismiss Ms Rowley’s unfair dismissal application and make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Rowley on 14 October 2024 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR784131>