Jordan Williams v Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd

Case [2022] FWC 1748


[2022] FWC 1748

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jordan Williams
v

Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd

(U2022/6336)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 7 JULY 2022

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

  1. On 15 June 2022 Mr Jordan Williams 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. Mr Williams advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that he commenced employment with Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd on 10 January 2022 and that his dismissal took effect on 25 May 2022.

  1. On 17 June 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Williams on his nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left advising Mr Williams that he had not served the minimum employment period.

  1. Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Williams’s nominated email address advising Mr Williams that on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Mr Williams to file any documents/evidence to support his claim that he had served the required minimum employment period. That correspondence also warned that if Mr Williams 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 1 July 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Williams via their nominated telephone number. However, Mr Williams could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting that he contact the Commission.

  1. To date, Mr Williams 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 of at least the 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 that:

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. Having regard to the circumstances of this matter I am satisfied that as Mr Williams has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act, his 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.

COMMISSIONER


[1] PR743479.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR743478>

Details
AGLC
Jordan Williams v Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 1748
Case
[2022] FWC 1748
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jordan Williams sought relief from the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal claim against his former employer, Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd. Williams claimed he was dismissed on 25 May 2022 after starting employment on 10 January 2022. The Commission sought to contact Williams to request documentation confirming he had met the minimum employment period under the Fair Work Act 2009, but was unable to reach him. Williams did not respond to attempts to contact him. The Commission dismissed the application as Williams had not completed the minimum employment period, and therefore his claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

The central legal issue was whether Williams had met the minimum employment period required to bring a claim for unfair dismissal. Under the Fair Work Act, the minimum employment period is six months if the employer is not a small business, and one year if the employer is a small business. The Commission was required to determine whether Williams had met this requirement before it could consider the merits of his unfair dismissal claim. The Fair Work Commission also had to consider whether Williams' application complied with the Act, was frivolous or vexatious, or had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Fair Work Commission found that Williams had not completed the minimum employment period, as he had been employed for less than six months. The Commission noted that Williams did not respond to attempts to contact him and provide evidence that he had met the minimum period. The Commission concluded that Williams' application had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act. An order was issued dismissing the application.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed Jordan Williams' application for relief from unfair dismissal, finding that he had not met the minimum employment period required to bring such a claim. As the application had no reasonable prospect of success, the Commission dismissed the application under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act. An order to this effect was issued.

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.