Michael Mantoufeh v Century Yuasa Batteries Pty. Limited

[2025] FWC 3013

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Michael Mantoufeh
v

Century Yuasa Batteries Pty. Limited

(U2025/5522)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 9 OCTOBER 2025

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

On 4 May 2025, Mr Michael Mantoufeh 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 Mantoufeh’s application has no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed.

In his Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application Mr Mantoufeh indicated that he commenced employment with Century Yuasa Batteries Pty Limited on 19 November 2024 and that his dismissal took effect on 7 April 2025. On the information provided by Mr Mantoufeh, he was employed for 4 months, 2 weeks and 5 days.

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

Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Mantoufeh on 7 May, 12 June and 8 July 2025 by telephone, SMS and email regarding the Minimum Employment Period.

On 8 May 2025, Mr Mantoufeh responded and confirmed that he does not meet the minimum employment period however he wanted to proceed with his application.

To date Mr Mantoufeh has not provided any further information that supports his eligibility to make the application.

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 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 Mantoufeh’s application have any reasonable prospects of success?

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

The information provided by Mr Mantoufeh 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 Mantoufeh had the opportunity to provide information that could show that he had in fact completed the minimum employment period. However Mr Mantoufeh has not provided any information that is consistent with him having done so. Mr Mantoufeh has also had the opportunity to put his case for consideration on all matters material to the decision to dismiss the application under s.587 (see Bond at [15]-[16]).

I am satisfied that Mr Mantoufeh’s 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 make the following order:

A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Michael Mantoufeh on 4 May 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to consider an unfair dismissal claim by Mr Michael Mantoufeh against Century Yuasa Batteries Pty. Limited. Mr Mantoufeh alleged that he was dismissed on 7 April 2025 and lodged an application for unfair dismissal with the Commission on 4 May 2025. The Commission was asked to determine whether the application should be dismissed because Mr Mantoufeh did not meet the minimum employment period requirement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Deputy President concluded that Mr Mantoufeh’s application had no reasonable prospects of success and dismissed it on the Commission’s own initiative.

The central legal issue was whether Mr Mantoufeh had served the minimum employment period required to bring an unfair dismissal claim. According to sections 382 and 383 of the Act, an applicant must have worked for the employer for at least 6 months to be eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim, unless the employer was a small business at the time of the dismissal, in which case the minimum period is 12 months. Based on the information provided by Mr Mantoufeh, he had worked for Century Yuasa Batteries for less than 6 months. The Commission had attempted to contact Mr Mantoufeh to seek further information but he had not provided any evidence that he had actually completed the minimum employment period.

The Deputy President considered that the power under section 587 of the Act allows the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative if there are no reasonable prospects of success. This power should be used cautiously, especially if there are disputed facts. However, in this case, Mr Mantoufeh had been given a fair opportunity to provide evidence that he was eligible to make the claim, but had not done so. There were no disputed facts that could affect the outcome. Therefore, it was clear that Mr Mantoufeh’s application had no reasonable prospects of success and the application was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that Mr Mantoufeh’s application for unfair dismissal be dismissed. The Deputy President found that there were no reasonable prospects that Mr Mantoufeh’s application would succeed because he had not served the minimum employment period required to bring an unfair dismissal claim. Despite the Commission’s attempts to contact Mr Mantoufeh and seek further information, he had not provided any evidence that he had actually completed the minimum employment period. As such, the application was dismissed on the Commission’s own initiative under section 587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established