Lisa Miles v Supa IGA Cooloongup

Case [2022] FWC 3022


[2022] FWC 3022

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Lisa Miles
v

Supa IGA Cooloongup

(U2022/10278)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 15 NOVEMBER 2022

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

  1. On 21 October 2022 Ms Lisa Miles 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. Ms Miles advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that she commenced employment with Supa IGA Cooloongup on 20 June 2022 and that she was notified of her dismissal on 30 October 2022.

  1. On 25 October 2022, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Miles on her nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was unable to be left.

  1. Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Miles’s nominated email address advising her that on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Ms Miles to file any documents/evidence to support her claim that he had served the required minimum employment period. That correspondence also warned that if Ms Miles 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 November 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Miles by telephone. However, Ms Miles could not be reached. A voicemail message was left advising of the minimum employment period issue.

  1. To date, Ms Miles 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 Ms Miles has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act, her 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] PR747929

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR747928>

Details
AGLC
Lisa Miles v Supa IGA Cooloongup [2022] FWC 3022
Case
[2022] FWC 3022
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lisa Miles v Supa IGA Cooloongup, the Fair Work Commission was asked to determine whether Ms Miles had been unfairly dismissed and was entitled to relief under the Fair Work Act 2009. Ms Miles, who began her employment with Supa IGA Cooloongup on 20 June 2022, claimed that she was dismissed on 30 October 2022 and applied for relief from unfair dismissal on 21 October 2022. Supa IGA Cooloongup did not contest the application, but the Commission was concerned that Ms Miles had not served the minimum employment period required to bring such an application.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Ms Miles had completed the minimum employment period under the Fair Work Act, a threshold requirement for bringing an unfair dismissal claim. The Fair Work Act stipulates that an employee must complete a minimum employment period to be protected from unfair dismissal. For employers that are not small businesses, this period is six months, and for small businesses, it is one year. Given that Ms Miles had been employed for less than six months, the Commission had to determine whether her application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Commission found that Ms Miles had not completed the required minimum employment period, and therefore, her application for unfair dismissal relief had no reasonable prospect of success. The Commission had twice attempted to contact Ms Miles to seek evidence that she had served the minimum employment period but received no response. Under Section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act, the Commission dismissed Ms Miles's application for lack of a reasonable prospect of success.

The Commission issued an order dismissing Ms Miles's application for relief from unfair dismissal, effective immediately. The dismissal was based on the determination that Ms Miles had not met the minimum employment period requirement and, as a result, her application had no 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.