Michael Kolis v Global Welding Supplies Pty Limited

[2025] FWC 366

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Michael Kolis
v

Global Welding Supplies Pty Limited

(U2024/13908)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 7 FEBRUARY 2025

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative - application has no reasonable prospects of success.

On 20 November 2024 Mr Michael Kolis made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

For the following reasons I am satisfied that Mr Kolis’ application has no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed.

Mr Kolis indicated in his Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application that he commenced employment with Global Welding Supplies Pty Limited on 23 September 2024 and that his dismissal took effect on 30 October 2024. On the information provided by Mr Kolis, he was employed for 1 month and 1 week.

Sections 382 and 383 of the Act provide that a person is only eligible to make an unfair dismissal application if they have completed the 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 Mr Kolis the period of employment was less than 6 months.

Commission staff tried to contact Mr Kolis on the following dates:

· 26 November 2024 by phone and letter
· 9 December 2024 by phone

Staff sought further information from Mr Kolis about whether he had served the minimum employment period.

Section 587 – General Principles

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. The relevant provisions of s.587 are:

“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 prospects of success.

…

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

The power under s.587 should be used with caution, particularly if the matter involves complex questions of fact or law (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [11]-[16] (Bond)). An application should not be dismissed under s.587 unless it is very clear that there are no reasonable prospects of success. As such the power under s.587 is not available if there are disputed facts that could affect the outcome of the proceedings.

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

Does Mr Kolis’ application have any reasonable prospects of success?

The Commission cannot consider the fairness of Mr Kolis’ dismissal until it is satisfied that he is eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim.

The information provided by Mr Kolis on his Form F2 application strongly indicates that he is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because he does not appear to have served the minimum employment period.

Mr Kolis had the opportunity to provide information that could show that he had in fact completed the minimum employment period. However Mr Kolis has not provided any information that is consistent with having served the minimum employment period.

I am satisfied that Mr Kolis has had the opportunity to put his case for consideration on all matters material to the making of the decision to dismiss his application under s.587 (see Bond at [15]-[16]).

I am satisfied that Mr Kolis’ claim has no reasonable prospect of success within the meaning of s.587(1)(c), and that it is appropriate in the circumstances to dismiss his application on the Commission’s own initiative using the facility available in s.587(3)(a).

I have decided to dismiss Mr Kolis’ unfair dismissal application and make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Kolis on 20 November 2024 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Michael Kolis filed an application for unfair dismissal against Global Welding Supplies Pty Limited under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Kolis claimed that his dismissal on 30 October 2024, after being employed for approximately one month and one week, was unfair. The Fair Work Commission considered whether Kolis' application had reasonable prospects of success. The Commission noted that to be eligible to lodge an unfair dismissal claim, an employee must have completed a minimum employment period, which can be either six or twelve months depending on the size of the employer. Given that Kolis had been employed for less than six months, the Commission assessed whether he could demonstrate that he had actually met the minimum employment requirement.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether Kolis' application had any reasonable prospects of success. The Fair Work Act permits the dismissal of an application if it has no reasonable prospects of success, among other grounds. The Commission considered whether Kolis could present any evidence to support his claim that he had completed the requisite employment period. Kolis had opportunities to provide such evidence but did not do so. The Commission concluded that Kolis' application was unlikely to succeed because he did not meet the eligibility criteria for filing an unfair dismissal claim. Furthermore, Kolis had not provided any information to counter the evidence that indicated he had not served the minimum employment period.

Based on the information provided, the Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission determined that Kolis' application for unfair dismissal had no reasonable prospects of success. The Commission found that Kolis did not meet the minimum employment period required to file such a claim and had not provided any evidence to support his eligibility. Therefore, the application was dismissed under section 587 of the Fair Work Act. The Commission issued an order dismissing Kolis' application for unfair dismissal and concluded that further proceedings were unwarranted.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established