Courtney Evans v Red Energy Pty. Limited Summary

[2023] FWC 2898

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Courtney Evans
v

Red Energy Pty. Limited

(U2023/9370)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 3 NOVEMBER 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

On 27 September 2023, Ms Courtney Evans 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). Ms Evans advised in the Unfair dismissal application Form F2 that she commenced employment with Red Energy Pty Limited on 27 July 2023 and her dismissal took effect on 12 September 2023. Having regard to this advice, confirmed in a Mention before me today, I am satisfied that Ms Evans has not completed the minimum employment period required under s.382 and s.383 of the FW Act, and therefore is not a person protected from unfair dismissal. Application U2023/9370 is therefore dismissed and an Order[1] to this effect will be issued with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] PR767943.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Courtney Evans filed an application for an unfair dismissal remedy with the Fair Work Commission against Red Energy Pty. Limited. Ms. Evans claimed that she was dismissed unfairly on 12 September 2023, after having commenced employment with the company on 27 July 2023. The application was heard before Deputy President Clancy in Melbourne on 3 November 2023. The central issue for the court was whether Ms. Evans was protected from unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) and whether her dismissal was fair. The court had to determine if Ms. Evans had completed the minimum employment period stipulated by sections 382 and 383 of the FW Act, which is necessary to qualify for protection against unfair dismissal.

Upon review of the application and subsequent confirmation during a mention, Deputy President Clancy found that Ms. Evans had not completed the minimum employment period required to be protected from unfair dismissal. This conclusion was based on the dates of employment and dismissal as provided by Ms. Evans. As a result, the court determined that Ms. Evans did not meet the eligibility criteria for protection under the Act. Consequently, the application for unfair dismissal was dismissed. The Deputy President issued an order to this effect, concluding that the application U2023/9370 was without merit due to the lack of eligibility for unfair dismissal protection.

Courtney Evans v Red Energy Pty. Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established