Kayla Simpson v Belle Joy Support

Case [2022] FWC 2995


[2022] FWC 2995

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Kayla Simpson
v

Belle Joy Support

(U2022/10062)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 11 NOVEMBER 2022

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

  1. On 14 October 2022 Ms Kayla Simpson 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. Ms Simpson advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that she commenced employment with Belle Joy Support on 18 April 2022 and that her dismissal took effect on 26 September 2022.

  1. On 17 October 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Simpson on her nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left requesting Ms Simpson contact the Commission as it appeared she had not served the minimum employment period.

  1. Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Simpson’s nominated email address advising her that on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Ms Simpson to file any documents/evidence to support her claim that she had served the required minimum employment period. That correspondence also warned that if Ms Simpson 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 2 November 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Simpson via her nominated telephone number. However, Ms Simpson could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting Ms Simpson contact the Commission.

  1. To date, Ms Simpson 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 Ms Simpson has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act, her 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 shortly.

COMMISSIONER


[1] PR747838

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR747837>

Details
AGLC
Kayla Simpson v Belle Joy Support [2022] FWC 2995
Case
[2022] FWC 2995
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kayla Simpson lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) seeking relief from unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). The respondent, Belle Joy Support, was alleged to have dismissed Simpson on 26 September 2022, after she commenced employment with the company on 18 April 2022. Simpson filed her application for unfair dismissal on 14 October 2022, however, the FWC found that she did not satisfy the minimum employment period requirement under section 382 of the FW Act, and therefore, her application lacked a reasonable prospect of success. The FWC dismissed the application under section 587(1)(c) of the FW Act.

The central legal issue before the FWC was whether Simpson had completed the minimum employment period with Belle Joy Support, as required by section 382 of the FW Act. The FWC considered whether Simpson had worked for her employer for a sufficient period to be protected from unfair dismissal under the Act. Additionally, the FWC needed to determine whether Simpson's application had a reasonable prospect of success, and if not, whether it should be dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the FW Act.

In dismissing Simpson's application, the FWC noted that she had not provided any documentation to demonstrate that she had completed the required minimum employment period. The FWC had made multiple attempts to contact Simpson, but she did not respond to any of these attempts. Given the absence of any evidence to support Simpson's claim that she had completed the minimum employment period, the FWC found that her application had no reasonable prospect of success. Consequently, the FWC dismissed the application under section 587(1)(c) of the FW Act. The FWC will issue an order to this effect shortly.

This decision highlights the importance of meeting the minimum employment period requirement under the FW Act when lodging an application for unfair dismissal. Employers should be aware that if an employee does not meet this requirement, their application may be dismissed without further notice. Furthermore, employees need to ensure they provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate they have completed the minimum employment period to avoid their application being dismissed on this basis.

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.