| [2023] FWC 1386 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Christopher Thomas Moore
v
Direct Freight Express
(U2023/3195)
| COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 15 JUNE 2023 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.
On 13 April 2023 Mr Christopher Thomas Moore 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 Moore advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that he commenced employment with Direct Freight Express on 25 January 2023 and that his dismissal took effect on 13 April 2023.
On 5 May 2023 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Moore on his nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left advising Mr Moore that he had not served the minimum employment period.
On 15 May 2023, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Moore’s nominated email address advising Mr Moore that, on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Mr Moore to file any documents or other evidence to support their 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 the application may be dismissed without further notice. An SMS notification was also sent to Mr Moore’s nominated telephone number requesting that they contact the Commission.
On 19 May 2023, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Moore on his nominated telephone number. The call was not answered and there was no facility allowing a voicemail to be left.
As the required documentation was not received, on 1 June 2023 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Moore on his nominated telephone number. The call was not answered and there was no facility allowing a voicemail to be left.
On 2 June 2023, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Moore on his nominated telephone number. The call was not answered and there was no facility allowing a voicemail to be left.
On 7 June 2023, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Moore on his nominated telephone number. The call was not answered, and a voicemail message was left advising Mr Moore that he had not served the minimum employment period. The voice message requested Mr Moore to advise the Commission by 8 June 2023 on whether he wished to continue with the application despite not meeting the minimum employment period. Mr Moore was also advised that if the Commission does not receive a response by 8 June 2023 then the matter will be dismissed.
To date Mr Moore has not replied to the Commission’s correspondence.
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 Mr Moore has not completed the required minimum employment period.
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 Mr Moore 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
<PR763038>
- AGLC
- Christopher Thomas Moore v Direct Freight Express [2023] FWC 1386
- Case
- [2023] FWC 1386
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commission found that Moore had not provided any evidence to support his claim of having served the minimum employment period. Multiple attempts to contact Moore to request such evidence were unsuccessful, and despite multiple notices, Moore failed to respond. The Commission concluded that the application had no reasonable prospect of success because Moore did not meet the statutory requirement of the minimum employment period. Consequently, the application was dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009.
In light of the above findings, the Commission dismissed Moore's application for an unfair dismissal remedy. The decision underscores the importance of meeting the statutory requirements for bringing an unfair dismissal claim and highlights the Commission's procedural obligations in ensuring that applications are substantiated with appropriate evidence.
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.