Lachlan Styles v The Guy (Aus) Pty Ltd

Case [2022] FWC 3124


[2022] FWC 3124

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Lachlan Styles
v

The Guy (Aus) Pty Ltd

(U2022/10345)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 24 NOVEMBER 2022

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

  1. On 25 October 2022 Mr Lachlan Styles 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 Styles advised in his application that he commenced employment with The Guy (Aus) Pty Ltd in or around May 2022 and that he was notified of his dismissal on 22 October 2022.

  1. On 27 October 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Styles on his nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left requesting that Mr Styles return the call.

  1. Later that day, the Commission sent correspondence to Mr Styles’ nominated email address advising him that on the basis of the information provided in his application, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence was also sent to Mr Styles nominated representative. The correspondence asked Mr Styles to file any documents/evidence to support his claim that he had served the required minimum employment period. The correspondence also warned that if Mr Styles did not contact the Commission within 14 days, his application may be dismissed without further correspondence to him.

  1. As the required documentation was not received, on 16 November 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Styles on his nominated telephone number. Mr Styles could not be reached so the Commission left a voicemail message asking Mr Styles to return its call.

  1. To date, Mr Styles has not responded 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. In the circumstances where Mr Styles has provided no further information regarding the minimum employment period and does not respond to the Commission, I have determined that his application has no reasonable prospect of success.

  1. As such, I order the application be dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR748276>

Details
AGLC
Lachlan Styles v The Guy (Aus) Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 3124
Case
[2022] FWC 3124
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lachlan Styles v The Guy (Aus) Pty Ltd, the applicant, Mr. Styles, applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for relief from unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr. Styles claimed to have been dismissed by his employer, The Guy (Aus) Pty Ltd, on 22 October 2022, after commencing employment in or around May 2022. The Commission was tasked with determining whether Mr. Styles' dismissal was unfair and whether he qualified for relief.

The central legal issue was whether Mr. Styles had completed the minimum employment period as stipulated by the Fair Work Act 2009. Section 382 of the Act mandates that an employee must have completed the minimum employment period to be protected from unfair dismissal. The minimum period is six months for employers who are not small businesses, and one year for small businesses. Given the information provided, it was unclear whether Mr. Styles had met this requirement. The Commission's efforts to contact Mr. Styles and request additional documentation to substantiate his claim were unsuccessful.

The Commission found that Mr. Styles had not provided sufficient information to demonstrate that he had completed the requisite minimum employment period. Despite multiple attempts to contact him and requests for documentation, Mr. Styles failed to respond. Under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act, the Commission determined that the application had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed it accordingly. This decision was based on the absence of a reasonable chance of proving that Mr. Styles had served the necessary employment period, and the failure to respond to the Commission's communications.

In conclusion, the Commission dismissed Mr. Styles' application for relief from unfair dismissal, finding it lacked a reasonable prospect of success due to insufficient evidence and non-responsiveness. The application was dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act.

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.