Danielle Cronin v Cover-More Travel Insurance

[2019] FWC 3428

[2019] FWC 3428

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Danielle Cronin
v
Cover-More Travel Insurance
(U2019/2810)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY MELBOURNE, 17 MAY 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 13 March 2019, Ms Danielle Cronin made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] In her Form F2 – Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2), Ms Cronin advised that she commenced employment with Cover-More Travel Insurance on 17 December 2018 and that she was notified of her dismissal on 13 March 2019, with the dismissal taking effect on the same day.

[3] On 14 March 2019, the Commission telephoned Ms Cronin to discuss the minimum employment period requirement under the Act. Email correspondence followed the phone call and it was confirmed that Ms Cronin’s application indicated she had not been employed for the minimum employment period required under the Act. The correspondence directed Ms Cronin to file in the Commission within 14 days any documents or evidence to support her claim of having served the minimum employment period. It was noted that if no response was received, her application may be dismissed without further notice.

[4] On 26 April 2019, an attempt was made to telephone Ms Cronin, however this was unsuccessful and there was no opportunity to leave a voicemail message. An email was then sent to Ms Cronin noting that the Commission had not received any material from her and warning that if she did not provide an acceptable explanation as to why she did not respond to the direction contained in the correspondence of 14 March 2019 within seven days, her application would be determined on the material currently before the Commission.

[5] A final attempt to telephone Ms Cronin was made on 30 April 2019 and a voicemail message was left seeking a return call.

[6] To date, the Commission has not received any documentation or further correspondence from Ms Cronin.

[7] Section 382 of the Act provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if they have completed a period of employment of at least the minimum employment period.

[8] Section 383 of the Act sets out the minimum employment period:

“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.”

[9] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

“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.”

[10] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as Ms Cronin has not completed the required minimum employment period, her application has no reasonable prospects of success. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(c) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR708424>