Leroy Bailey v Total Ventilation and Hygiene

Case [2022] FWC 2744


[2022] FWC 2744

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Leroy Bailey
v

Total Ventilation and Hygiene

(U2022/9481)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 14 OCTOBER 2022

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

  1. On 23 September 2022 Mr Leroy Bailey 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 Bailey advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that he commenced employment with Total Ventilation and Hygiene on 18 July 2022 and that he was notified of his dismissal on 2 August 2022.

  1. On 25 September 2022 the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Bailey’s nominated email address advising Mr Bailey that on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Mr Bailey to file any documents/evidence to support his claim that he had served the required minimum employment period. That correspondence also warned that if Mr Bailey 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 7 October 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Bailey via his nominated telephone number. However, an automated message indicated that the call was unable to be completed.

  1. Later that day the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Bailey’s nominated email address and his representative’s nominated email address advising that if the required information was not received by 9 October 2022 the matter may be dismissed without further notice.

  1. To date, Mr Bailey 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 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. Having regard to the circumstances of this matter I am satisfied that as Mr Bailey has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act, his application has no reasonable prospect of success. As such, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act. An order[1] to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER


[1] PR746796

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR746795>

Details
AGLC
Leroy Bailey v Total Ventilation and Hygiene [2022] FWC 2744
Case
[2022] FWC 2744
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leroy Bailey, an employee of Total Ventilation and Hygiene, applied to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Bailey had been employed by Total Ventilation and Hygiene for approximately three weeks, commencing on 18 July 2022, and was notified of his dismissal on 2 August 2022. The Fair Work Commission found that Bailey had not completed the required minimum employment period, as stipulated by section 382 of the Fair Work Act. The Commission subsequently dismissed Bailey's application under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act, on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The legal issues that the Fair Work Commission was required to decide included whether Bailey had completed the minimum employment period required to be protected from unfair dismissal, as well as whether his application had a reasonable prospect of success. The Fair Work Commission found that Bailey had not completed the minimum employment period, and that his application did not have a reasonable prospect of success. The Commission's reasoning was based on the fact that Bailey had not provided any evidence to support his claim that he had served the required minimum employment period. The Commission had previously notified Bailey that he had not served the minimum employment period and had directed him to file any documents or evidence to support his claim. However, Bailey failed to respond to the Commission's correspondence.

The Fair Work Commission's decision highlights the importance of providing evidence to support an unfair dismissal claim. In this case, Bailey's failure to provide any evidence to support his claim that he had served the required minimum employment period resulted in his application being dismissed. Employers should be aware that employees who are dismissed after a short period of employment may still make an unfair dismissal claim, and that it is important to ensure that any dismissal is carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The Fair Work Commission's decision also serves as a reminder that employees who wish to make an unfair dismissal claim must ensure that they have completed the required minimum employment period.

The Fair Work Commission's final order was that Bailey's application for a remedy for unfair dismissal was dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act, on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. An order to this effect was issued shortly after the decision was handed down.

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.