Kira Crawford v Mohamad Adra

[2025] FWC 2257

[2025] FWC 2257

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Kira Crawford
v

Mohamad Adra

(U2025/10461)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'NEILL MELBOURNE, 1 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.

1. On 24 June 2025, Ms Kira Crawford made an unfair dismissal application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

1. For the following reasons I am satisfied that Ms Crawford’s application has no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed.

1. Ms Crawford stated in her application that she commenced employment with Mohamad Adra on 18 February 2025. Ms Crawford also stated that her dismissal took effect on 2 June 2025.

1. 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 Crawford, her period of employment was less than 6 months.

1. Commission staff provided Ms Crawford with information regarding the minimum employment period via email on 3 July 2025. The Commission attempted to contact Ms Crawford by telephone on 3 and 11 July 2025 and left voice messages advising that the minimum employment period has not been met and if she does not contact the Commission, her application may be dismissed under s.587(1)(c). On 1 August 2025, my Chambers attempted to reach Ms Crawford via telephone. Ms Crawford did not respond to this call.

Section 587 – General Principles

1. 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.

1. The power under s.587 should be used with caution, particularly if the matter involves complex questions of fact or law.[1] An application should not be dismissed under s.587 unless it is very clear that there are no reasonable prospects of success and the power under s.587 is not available if there are disputed facts that could affect the outcome of the proceedings.

1. Importantly, applicants must be given a fair opportunity to show that their application does in fact have some reasonable prospects of success.

Does Ms Crawford’s application have any reasonable prospects of success?

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

1. The information provided by Ms Crawford indicates that she is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because she was employed for less than six months.

1. I am satisfied that Ms Crawford’s claim has no reasonable prospect of success and that it is appropriate to dismiss her application. I make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Kira Crawford on 24 June 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] See generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [11]-[16].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR790288>