Evangelos Papaharisis v Peninsula Pool Steel Fixing Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 482

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Evangelos Papaharisis
v

Peninsula Pool Steel Fixing Pty Ltd

(U2024/15488)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN

MELBOURNE, 18 FEBRUARY 2025

Unfair dismissal application – MEP not met – application dismissed

The following is an edited version of a decision given on transcript earlier this morning. Evangelos Papaharisis (applicant) has made an unfair dismissal application under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). Peninsula Pool Steel Fixing Pty Ltd (respondent) objects to the application on the ground that the applicant did not complete the ‘minimum employment period’ (MEP), which for small businesses is one year (see ss 382(a) and 383). The applicant did not attend the determinative conference. The notice of listing required the parties to attend and advised them that s 600 allows the Commission to determine a matter in the absence of a person who has been required to attend before it. I proceeded to do so. It is clear that the applicant has not met the MEP. I find that at the time of dismissal, the respondent was a small business employer as defined in s 23. It employed five persons including the applicant. It had no associated entities. The applicant was engaged as a sub-contractor for the respondent between 2021 and 2024. On 15 July 2024, he commenced full-time employment pursuant to a written contract. He was employed by the respondent for only four and a half months. He has not served the MEP, which is one year. The application is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Hearing details:

2025
Melbourne (by telephone)
18 February

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the applicant, Evangelos Papaharisis, sought to have his dismissal by Peninsula Pool Steel Fixing Pty Ltd deemed unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009. The respondent contested the application on the basis that the applicant had not completed the minimum employment period (MEP) required for unfair dismissal claims. The respondent, a small business employing five people at the time, argued that the applicant, who was initially a sub-contractor and later became a full-time employee, had only worked for four and a half months before being dismissed.

The central legal issue before the Deputy President was whether the applicant met the MEP as stipulated in sections 382(a) and 383 of the Act. The MEP for small businesses is one year, and since the applicant had not met this requirement, the Deputy President needed to determine whether the dismissal application could proceed. Another consideration was the applicant's failure to attend the determinative conference, despite a notice of listing mandating his presence.

The Deputy President found that the respondent was a small business as defined in section 23 of the Act and that the applicant had not served the requisite one-year period of employment. Consequently, the application was dismissed as the applicant did not satisfy the statutory prerequisites for an unfair dismissal claim. The Deputy President proceeded with the hearing in the applicant's absence, exercising the discretion under section 600 of the Act.

The orders of the Fair Work Commission were that the application by Evangelos Papaharisis for unfair dismissal be dismissed, as he had not completed the required minimum employment period. The Deputy President concluded that the statutory conditions for an unfair dismissal claim were not met, and thus the application was dismissed.

Evangelos Papaharisis v Peninsula Pool Steel Fixing Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established