Daniel Cross v Autobarn

Case [2023] FWC 3318


[2023] FWC 3318

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Daniel Cross
v

Autobarn

(U2023/10664)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 15 DECEMBER 2023

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

  1. On 1 November 2023, Mr Daniel Cross (the Applicant) 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. Mr Cross advised in his Form F2 – Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that he commenced employment with Autobarn (the Respondent) on 19 July 2023, and that his dismissal took effect on 26 October 2023.

  1. On 21 November 2023, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Cross on his nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left advising Mr Cross that he had not served the minimum employment period. Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Cross’ nominated email addressing advising him that, on the basis of the information provided in his Form F2, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Mr Cross to file any documents or other evidence to support his claim that he had served the required minimum employment period. That correspondence also warned him that if he did not contact the Commission within 14 days, his application may be dismissed without further notice. An SMS notification was also sent to Mr Cross’ nominated telephone number requesting that he contact the Commission.

  1. On 7 December 2023, as the required documentation was not received, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Cross on his nominated telephone number. However, Mr Cross could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting that he urgently contact the Commission and that his application was at risk of being dismissed. To date, Mr Cross has not replied to the Commission’s correspondence.

  1. Section 382 of the FW Act provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if they have completed a period of employment. 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 the material before the Commission indicates that Mr Cross has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act, I am satisfied the application has no reasonable prospect of success. As such, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act. An Order[1] to this effect will be issued with this decision.



DEPUTY PRESIDENT


[1] PR769320.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR769319>

Details
AGLC
Daniel Cross v Autobarn [2023] FWC 3318
Case
[2023] FWC 3318
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission dismissed an application for relief from unfair dismissal by Daniel Cross against Autobarn. Mr Cross commenced employment with Autobarn on 19 July 2023 and was dismissed on 26 October 2023. He filed an application for unfair dismissal on 1 November 2023. The Commission found that the application had no reasonable prospect of success because Mr Cross had not completed the required minimum employment period of six months, as stipulated by the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission notified Mr Cross of the issue on 21 November 2023 and requested evidence of his employment period, with a warning that failure to respond would result in the dismissal of his application. Mr Cross did not respond to the Commission’s correspondence.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Mr Cross had completed the minimum employment period of six months before his dismissal, as required by the Fair Work Act. The Commission considered whether the application could proceed given the statutory minimum employment period had not been satisfied. The Act mandates that a person must complete a specific period of employment to be protected from unfair dismissal. The Commission found that Mr Cross had not completed this period, leading to the conclusion that his application had no reasonable prospect of success. Consequently, the application was dismissed under section 587 of the Fair Work Act, which allows for the dismissal of applications that have no reasonable prospect of success.

In dismissing the application, Deputy President Clancy noted that Mr Cross had been notified of the issue and given the opportunity to provide evidence of his employment period. The Commission’s attempts to contact Mr Cross were unsuccessful, and he did not respond to the correspondence. Given the statutory requirement and the lack of response from Mr Cross, the application was dismissed. An order to this effect will be issued with the decision.

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.