Kailah Parkinson v Reward Gateway Pty Limited

[2025] FWC 2535

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Kailah Parkinson
v

Reward Gateway Pty Limited

(U2025/8661)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 28 AUGUST 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 19 May 2025, Ms Kailah Parkinson 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 Ms Parkinson’s application has no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed.

Ms Parkinson indicated in her Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application that she commenced employment with Reward Gateway Pty Limited on 5 December 2024 and that her dismissal took effect on 15 May 2025. On the information provided by Ms Parkinson, she was employed for 5 months, 1 week and 3 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 Ms Parkinson the period of employment was less than 6 months.

Commission staff attempted to contact Ms Parkinson on 20 May, 3 June, 4 June, 5 June, 12 June and 18 June 2025 by telephone, SMS and email regarding the Minimum Employment Period.

Ms Parkinson responded, however did not provide any additional relevant information regarding whether she had served 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 Ms Parkinson’s application have any reasonable prospects of success?

The Commission cannot consider the fairness of Ms Parkinson’s dismissal until it is clear that she is eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim.

The information provided by Ms Parkinson on her Form F2 application strongly indicates that she is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because she does not appear to have served the minimum employment period.

Ms Parkinson had the opportunity to provide information that could show that she had in fact completed the minimum employment period. However Ms Parkinson has not provided any information that is consistent with her having done so. Ms Parkinson has also had the opportunity to put her 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 Ms Parkinson’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 her 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 Ms Kailah Parkinson on 19 May 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the case of Kailah Parkinson v Reward Gateway Pty Limited, Ms Parkinson brought an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Ms Parkinson alleged that her dismissal by Reward Gateway Pty Limited was unfair and sought a remedy. The Commission was required to determine whether Ms Parkinson was eligible to make such a claim and, if so, whether the dismissal was unfair.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether Ms Parkinson had satisfied the minimum employment period requirement as set out in sections 382 and 383 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether her application had reasonable prospects of success. Given that Ms Parkinson had been employed for less than six months, the minimum employment period, the Commission needed to determine whether she could qualify for an unfair dismissal claim. Additionally, the Commission considered whether it should dismiss the application on its own initiative under section 587 of the Act, based on the absence of reasonable prospects of success.

Deputy President Easton found that Ms Parkinson’s application did not have reasonable prospects of success. Ms Parkinson's employment period, as indicated in her application, was less than the statutory minimum required to lodge an unfair dismissal claim. Despite multiple attempts by the Commission to contact Ms Parkinson for further information, she did not provide any evidence that she had met the minimum employment period requirement. Therefore, the Commission concluded that it was appropriate to dismiss the application under section 587(1)(c) at its own initiative.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the unfair dismissal application made by Ms Kailah Parkinson on 19 May 2025 be dismissed. The decision was based on the finding that Ms Parkinson did not meet the eligibility criteria for making an unfair dismissal claim, as she had not served the requisite minimum employment period.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established