Kerry-Anne Peterson v Michael Hill Jewellers

[2023] FWC 1177

[2023] FWC 1177

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Kerry-Anne Peterson
v

Michael Hill Jewellers

(U2023/3307)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT MELBOURNE, 19 MAY 2023

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

1. On 18 April 2023 Kerry-Anne Peterson (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 Michael Hill Jewellers on Tuesday 4 October 2022 and that their dismissal took effect on Thursday 30 March 2023.

1. On 21 April 2023 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 the Applicant’s nominated telephone number later that day requesting that they contact the Commission.

1. On 24 April 2023 the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant on their nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left requesting that they advise whether they still wanted to proceed with the application, even though they had not served the minimum employment period.

1. As the required documentation was not received, on 11 May 2023 the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant on their nominated telephone number. However, the Applicant could not be reached, and no voicemail message was able to be left.

1. Later that day the Commission email correspondence to the Applicant’s nominated email address advising 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 by Friday 12 May 2023 the application may be dismissed without further notice.

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

<PR762027>