Ingrid Grosz v L R Trading Pty Ltd
[2024] FWC 984
•24 APRIL 2024
| [2024] FWC 984 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Ingrid Grosz
v
L R Trading Pty Ltd
(U2024/2467)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 24 APRIL 2024 |
Application for relief from unfair dismissal – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.
On 5 March 2024, Ms Ingrid Grosz 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 Grosz advised in the Form F2 – Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that she commenced employment with L R Trading Pty Ltd (the Respondent) on 25 November 2023 and that her dismissal took effect on 2 March 2024.
On 15 March 2024, the Commission attempted to contact the Ms Grosz on her nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left requesting that Ms Grosz contact the Commission and advising that based on the information in her Form F2 she may not have served the minimum employment period. Later that day the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Grosz’s nominated email address advising her that, on the basis of the information provided in her Form F2, she may not have served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Ms Grosz to file any documents or other evidence to support her 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 her application may be dismissed without further notice. An SMS notification was also sent to Ms Grosz’s nominated telephone number requesting that she contact the Commission.
As the required documentation was not received, on 2 April 2024 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Grosz on her nominated telephone number. However, Ms Grosz could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting that she urgently contact the Commission as the information in her application indicated that she may not have served the minimum employment period. The voicemail also advised that her matter was at risk of being dismissed if no contact was made. To date Ms Grosz has not replied to the Commission’s correspondence.
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.
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 prospects of success.
As the material before the Commission does not indicate that Mr Grosz has 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] PR773531.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR773530>
0
0
0