Khateebulla Mirza v Transport for NSW

Case [2023] FWC 23


[2023] FWC 23

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Khateebulla Mirza
v

Transport for NSW

(U2022/10578)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 4 JANUARY 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

  1. On 3 November 2022 Mr Khateebulla Mirza 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 Mirza advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that he commenced employment with Transport for NSW on 2 May 2022 and he was notified of his dismissal on 18 October 2022. Mr Mirza also failed to pay the filing fee or seek a waiver and it did not appear, on the face of his application, that he was employed by a national system employer.

  1. On 23 November 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Mirza on his nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left requesting Mr Mirza contact the Commission regarding the minimum employment period.

  1. On 5 December 2022 the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Mirza’s nominated email address advising him that, on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Mr Mirza to file any documents/evidence to support his claim that they 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 20 December 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Mirza on his nominated telephone number. However, Mr Mirza could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting that he contact the Commission urgently.

  1. To date Mr Mirza 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 Mirza 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 Mirza has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act the application has no reasonable prospect of success. As such, I order that the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act. For this reason I do not need to deal with the non-payment of the filing fee or if he worked for a national system employer.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR749398>

Details
AGLC
Khateebulla Mirza v Transport for NSW [2023] FWC 23
Case
[2023] FWC 23
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Khateebulla Mirza v Transport for NSW, the applicant, Mr Mirza, sought a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr Mirza alleged that he had been dismissed by Transport for NSW, and he commenced employment with the respondent on 2 May 2022, with the dismissal notification occurring on 18 October 2022. The Commission noted that Mr Mirza did not pay the filing fee nor seek a waiver, and it did not appear that he was employed by a national system employer.

The legal issue before the Fair Work Commission was whether Mr Mirza's application for an unfair dismissal remedy had a reasonable prospect of success. The Commission examined the minimum employment period requirement under s.383 of the FW Act. The applicant had not completed the required minimum employment period of six months, which is a threshold requirement for protection against unfair dismissal. The Commission sought to contact Mr Mirza to request further information to substantiate his claim of having met the minimum employment period. However, Mr Mirza did not respond to the Commission's correspondence.

The Commission found that the application did not have a reasonable prospect of success, as Mr Mirza had not completed the requisite minimum employment period under the FW Act. The Commission dismissed the application under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act, as it lacked a reasonable prospect of success. The Commission did not need to address the non-payment of the filing fee or whether Mr Mirza was employed by a national system employer due to the application's lack of prospects.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the application for an unfair dismissal remedy be dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act, as it did not have a reasonable prospect of success.

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.