Khaled Odal v Capital Transport

Case [2023] FWC 482


[2023] FWC 482

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Khaled Odal
v

Capital Transport

(U2023/892)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 27 FEBRUARY 2023

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

  1. On 3 February 2023 Mr Khaled Odal 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 Odal advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that he commenced employment with Capital Transport in September 2022 and that his dismissal took effect on 13 January 2023.

  1. On 7 February 2023 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Odal on his nominated telephone number. There was no provision to leave a voice message, only a number for return call. A text message was left to advise Mr Odal that the Commission tried to contact him.

  1. Later that day the Commission sent correspondence to Mr Odal’s nominated email address advising Mr Odal that, based on the information provided in the Form F2, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Mr Odal to file any documents or other evidence to support his claim that he had served the required minimum employment period. That correspondence also warned that if he 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 21 February 2023 and 22 February 2023 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Odal on his nominated telephone number. However, Mr Odal could not be reached.

  1. To date Mr Odal 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 Mr Odal 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 Mr Odal 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

<PR751215>

Details
AGLC
Khaled Odal v Capital Transport [2023] FWC 482
Case
[2023] FWC 482
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Khaled Odal applied for relief from unfair dismissal against his former employer, Capital Transport. Odal alleged that his dismissal from employment on 13 January 2023 was unfair. Capital Transport contested the application, asserting that Odal had not completed the minimum employment period required to be protected from unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was required to determine whether Odal had served the requisite minimum employment period and, if not, whether the application had reasonable prospects of success.

The primary legal issue was whether Odal had completed the minimum employment period before his dismissal. Under the Fair Work Act, an employee must complete a minimum employment period to be protected from unfair dismissal. For employers who are not small businesses, this period is six months. The Commission needed to determine if Odal's employment met this criterion. The Commission also had to assess whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success, given Odal's failure to provide evidence of completing the required employment period.

The Commission concluded that Odal had not completed the six-month minimum employment period as required by section 383 of the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the application for unfair dismissal relief was deemed to have no reasonable prospect of success. Commissioner Bissett dismissed the application under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act, as the application did not comply with the Act and lacked a reasonable prospect of success. The Commission found that Odal's failure to provide the necessary evidence and his unresponsiveness to attempts for further communication by the Commission further supported the dismissal of the application.

No orders were made in favour of Odal, and the application for unfair dismissal was dismissed.

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.