John Hefferan v Freight and Logistics Queensland Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 3040

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

John Hefferan
v

Freight And Logistics Queensland Pty Ltd

(U2025/12420)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 10 OCTOBER 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative - application has no reasonable prospects of success.

On 31 July 2025, Mr John Heffernan made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

For the following reasons I am satisfied that Mr Heffernan’s application has no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed.

In his Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application Mr Heffernan indicated that he commenced employment with Freight and Logistics Queensland Pty Ltd on 30 June 2025 and that his dismissal took effect on 10 July 2025. On the information provided by Mr Heffernan, he was employed for 10 days.

Sections 382 and 383 of the Act provide that a person is only eligible to make an unfair dismissal application if they have completed a minimum period of employment before their dismissal. Section 383 defines the minimum employment period to be either 6 months or 12 months, depending on whether the respondent was a small business employer at the time of the dismissal. On the information provided by Mr Heffernan the period of employment was less than 6 months.

Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Heffernan on 6 August 2025 by telephone, SMS and email regarding the Minimum Employment Period.

Section 587 – General Principles

Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative in the early stages of the proceedings. Protracted proceedings can be avoided when there is no reasonable prospect of an outcome other than the dismissal of the application.

The power under s.587 should be used with caution, particularly if the matter involves complex questions of fact or law (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [11]-[16] (Bond)). An application should not be dismissed under s.587 unless it is very clear that there are no reasonable prospects of success. As such the power under s.587 is not available if there are disputed facts that could affect the outcome of the proceedings.

Importantly, applicants must be given a fair opportunity to show that their application does in fact have some reasonable prospects of success.

Does Mr Heffernan’s application have any reasonable prospects of success?

The Commission cannot consider the fairness of Mr Heffernan’s dismissal until it is clear that he is eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim.

The information provided by Mr Heffernan on his Form F2 application strongly indicates that he is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because he does not appear to have served the minimum employment period.

Mr Heffernan had the opportunity to provide information that could show that he had in fact completed the minimum employment period. However Mr Heffernan has not provided any information that is consistent with him having done so. Mr Heffernan has also had the opportunity to put his case for consideration on all matters material to the decision to dismiss the application under s.587 (see Bond at [15]-[16]).

I am satisfied that Mr Heffernan ‘s claim has no reasonable prospect of success within the meaning of s.587(1)(c), and that it is appropriate in the circumstances to dismiss his application on the Commission’s own initiative using the facility available in s.587(3)(a). I make the following order:

A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr John Heffernan on 31 July 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The Fair Work Commission considered an unfair dismissal application made by Mr John Heffernan against his former employer, Freight and Logistics Queensland Pty Ltd. Mr Heffernan alleged that he was unfairly dismissed from his role, which he had held for only 10 days, starting from 30 June 2025 and ending on 10 July 2025. The Commission was required to determine whether Mr Heffernan's application had reasonable prospects of success and if the minimum employment period had been fulfilled, as per sections 382 and 383 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary issue was whether Mr Heffernan had completed the requisite minimum employment period before his dismissal, as stipulated by sections 382 and 383 of the Act. Given that Mr Heffernan had been employed for less than six months, the Commission needed to verify if he met the eligibility criteria for lodging an unfair dismissal claim. Additionally, the Commission considered if there were reasonable prospects that Mr Heffernan's application would succeed, especially in light of his short employment duration.

The Deputy President concluded that Mr Heffernan's application did not have reasonable prospects of success because he had not completed the minimum employment period required to make an unfair dismissal claim. Despite attempts by Commission staff to contact Mr Heffernan for additional information, he did not provide any evidence to suggest that he had met the minimum employment period. Therefore, the Deputy President exercised the power under section 587 of the Fair Work Act to dismiss the application on the Commission's own initiative, as there were no reasonable prospects that the application would succeed.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that Mr Heffernan's unfair dismissal application, lodged on 31 July 2025, be dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established