| [2023] FWC 3009 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Matt Majeed
v
Pyramids Builders Pty Ltd
(U2023/9918)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 17 NOVEMBER 2023 |
Application for relief from unfair dismissal – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.
On 11 October 2023 Mr Matt Majeed (Applicant) 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).
Mr Majeed advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that they commenced employment with Pyramids Builders Pty Ltd (Respondent) on 1 September 2023 and that their dismissal took effect on 13 September 2023.
On 16 October 2023, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Majeed on his nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left advising Mr Majeed that he had not served the minimum employment period. Later that day the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Majeed’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 Majeed to file any documents or other evidence to support his claim that he had served the required minimum employment period. That correspondence also warned that if Mr Majeed did not contact the Commission within 14 days his application may be dismissed without further notice.
On 17 October 2023, Mr Majeed telephoned the Commission helpline and confirmed the employment start date and dismissal date were as provided in the application. The Commission advised that he had not served the minimum employment period. Mr Majeed advised that he wished to seek legal advice before discontinuing the application. On 30 October 2023, as the required documentation was not received, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Majeed on his nominated telephone number. However, Mr Majeed could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting that Mr Majeed contact the Commission. To date, Mr Majeed has not replied to the Commission’s correspondence.
Section 382 of the FW Act provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if they have completed a period of employment.
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.
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.
As the material before the Commission indicates Mr Majeed has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act, I am satisfied the 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 with this decision.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] PR768361.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR768360>
- AGLC
- Matt Majeed v Pyramids Builders Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 3009
- Case
- [2023] FWC 3009
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue before the Deputy President was whether Majeed had completed the minimum employment period required under section 383 of the FW Act to be eligible for protection against unfair dismissal. As the employer was not a small business employer, Majeed would need to have completed at least six months of employment to qualify for protection. The Commission had to determine if the evidence provided by Majeed or any other documentation supported that he had been employed for the requisite period. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess if Majeed's application had a reasonable prospect of success or if it was frivolous or vexatious, as per section 587 of the FW Act.
Upon reviewing the application, the Commission found that Majeed had not completed the minimum employment period of six months. Despite being contacted multiple times, Majeed failed to provide any documentation or evidence to support his claim that he had been employed for the requisite period. Given that the application lacked a reasonable prospect of success, the Deputy President dismissed the application under section 587(1)(c) of the FW Act. An order to this effect will be issued with the decision.
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.