Georgia Smits v Dr Fiona Lee

Case [2023] FWC 22


[2023] FWC 22

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Georgia Smits
v

Dr Fiona Lee

(U2022/11494)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 4 JANUARY 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

  1. On 2 December 2022 Miss Georgia Smits 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. Miss Smits advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that she commenced employment with Dr Fiona Lee on 20 June 2022 and she was notified of her dismissal on 2 December 2022.

  1. On 5 December 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Miss Smits on her nominated telephone number. The call was not answered and a Voicemail could not be left. Later that day the Commission emailed correspondence to Miss Smits’s nominated email address advising Miss Smits that, on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Miss Smits to file any documents/evidence to support a claim that she had served the required minimum employment period. That correspondence also warned that if she did not contact the Commission within 14 days the application may be dismissed without further notice.

  1. As the required documentation was not received, on 22 December 2022, the Commission attempted to contact Miss Smits on her nominated telephone number. The Commission was again unable to contact Miss Smits as the phone was not answered.

  1. To date Miss Smits 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. I am satisfied Miss Smits has not completed the required minimum employment period.

  1. 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 Miss Smits has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act the application has no reasonable prospect of success. As such, I order that the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR749397>

Details
AGLC
Georgia Smits v Dr Fiona Lee [2023] FWC 22
Case
[2023] FWC 22
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Georgia Smits brought an application to the Fair Work Commission under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for an unfair dismissal remedy. Smits alleged that she had been dismissed by Dr Fiona Lee on 2 December 2022, after starting her employment with Dr Lee on 20 June 2022. The Commission had attempted on multiple occasions to contact Smits regarding the application but had not received a response. The Commission had informed Smits that her application had no reasonable prospect of success as she had not completed the required minimum employment period under the Fair Work Act, and that her application may be dismissed without further notice if she did not provide evidence to the contrary. The Commission dismissed the application as it was unlikely to succeed due to Smits not meeting the minimum employment period requirement.

The central legal issue was whether Smits had completed the minimum employment period as required by the Fair Work Act to be protected from unfair dismissal. The Fair Work Act sets out the minimum employment period as six months for employees of non-small business employers and one year for employees of small business employers. The Commission found that Smits had not completed the required minimum employment period, and so her application was unlikely to succeed.

The Commission found that Smits had not completed the required minimum employment period under the Fair Work Act and that her application had no reasonable prospect of success. The Commission was unable to contact Smits to obtain any further information or evidence to support her claim. As a result, the application was dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for unfair dismissal remedy brought by Smits against Dr Lee on the basis that the application was unlikely to succeed as Smits had not completed the required minimum employment period.

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.