Isobel Nilsson v Fiona Lia

Case [2023] FWC 1569


[2023] FWC 1569

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Isobel Nilsson
v

Fiona Lia

(U2023/4628)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 30 JUNE 2023

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

  1. On 26 May 2023 Isobel Nilsson (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. The Applicant advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that they commenced employment with Fiona Lia on 12 April 2023 and that their dismissal took effect on 18 May 2023.

  1. On 31 May 2023 the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant on their nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left notifying the Applicant of the concern that they did not meet the minimum employment period and requesting a response by email or phone.

  1. Later that day the Commission emailed correspondence to the Applicant’s nominated email address advising the Applicant that, on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, they had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed the Applicant to file any documents or other evidence to support their claim that they had served the required minimum employment period. That correspondence also warned that if they did not contact the Commission within 14 days the application may be dismissed without further notice. An SMS notification was also sent to the Applicant’s nominated telephone number requesting that they contact the Commission.

  1. As the required documentation was not received, on 13 June 2023 the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant on their nominated telephone number. However, the Applicant could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting that the Applicant contact the Commission by email or phone.

  1. To date the Applicant 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 the Applicant 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 the Applicant has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act the application has no reasonable prospect of success. As such, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act.

COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR763727>

Details
AGLC
Isobel Nilsson v Fiona Lia [2023] FWC 1569
Case
[2023] FWC 1569
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Isobel Nilsson v Fiona Lia was heard by Commissioner Bissett in the Fair Work Commission, where Nilsson sought a remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Nilsson claimed to have been dismissed by Lia on 18 May 2023, just over a month after starting employment on 12 April 2023. The Commission was concerned that Nilsson had not completed the minimum employment period required under the Act to make such an application and attempted to contact Nilsson to seek further information. Despite multiple attempts to contact Nilsson, no evidence was provided to support the claim that the minimum employment period had been completed, and Nilsson did not respond to the Commission's correspondence.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Nilsson had completed the minimum employment period as required by section 382 of the Fair Work Act. Under section 383, the minimum employment period is six months for employers who are not small business employers, and Nilsson did not provide any evidence to suggest that this period had been met. Further, section 587(1)(c) of the Act allows the Commission to dismiss an application if it has no reasonable prospect of success, which applied here as Nilsson had not completed the minimum employment period.

Given that Nilsson did not respond to the Commission's attempts to contact them and provide evidence of having met the minimum employment period, Commissioner Bissett found that Nilsson's application had no reasonable prospect of success. As such, the application was dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act. The Commission was satisfied that Nilsson had not completed the required minimum employment period, and the application was dismissed without further notice.

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.