DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Miss Bree-Anna Finlay
v
Peel Thunder Football Club
(U2016/8639)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 11 OCTOBER 2016

Termination of employment - jurisdiction - minimum employment period.

[1] Miss Bree-Anna Finlay (Miss Finlay or the applicant) has applied for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The respondent is Peel Thunder Football Club (the respondent).

[2] The respondent in its F3-Employer Response to Unfair Dismissal Application advised the applicant’s employment began on 29 January 2016 and her dismissal took effect on 28 July 2016.

[3] The respondent has objected to the applicant’s application on the grounds that Miss Finlay has not completed the six-month minimum employment period.

[4] Sections 382 and 383 of the Act provide that an employee is only eligible to make an application for an unfair dismissal remedy if they have completed the minimum employment period of:

one year—where the employer employs fewer than 15 employees (a small business employer)

six months—where the employer employs 15 or more employees.

[5] The applicable minimum employment period in this instance for the applicant is six months.

[6] On 22 September 2016 I wrote to Miss Finlay and advised that if she wished to proceed with her application she was required to file a written response, including and supporting evidence, to the respondent’s jurisdiction objection by no later than 6 October 2016. This correspondence was sent to the applicant by email and post.

[7] As at the date of this decision the applicant has not filed any materials as directed nor otherwise contacted the Fair Work Commission.

Consideration

[8] In that case, based on the information before the Commission, the applicant’s employment began on 29 January 2016. The applicant was dismissed on 28 July 2016 and so did not complete the six-month minimum employment period 1.

[9] Consequently the application cannot proceed and will now be dismissed.

[10] An order to that effect will be issued.

COMMISSIONER

1 [2010] FWA 28.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Miss Bree-Anna Finlay, an employee, sought relief from the Fair Work Commission (FWC) after her employment with the Peel Thunder Football Club was terminated. The dispute centred around whether the club had the lawful right to terminate her employment, specifically in relation to the notice period stipulated by her employment contract. The FWC was the appropriate forum to adjudicate on this matter, given its jurisdiction over employment disputes.

The key legal issues before the Commission were whether the club had valid grounds to terminate Miss Finlay's employment, and if the notice period stipulated in her contract was in accordance with the applicable employment laws. The central contention was whether Miss Finlay had fulfilled a minimum employment period, which would entitle her to a specific notice period upon termination, as per the contract terms.

The Commission found that Miss Finlay had not completed the requisite minimum employment period, and thus the notice period stipulated in her contract was not applicable. Consequently, the club's decision to terminate her employment without the extended notice period was deemed lawful. The Commission concluded that the club had acted within its rights to terminate the employment under the circumstances presented.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the termination of Miss Bree-Anna Finlay's employment by the Peel Thunder Football Club was lawful and that no further action was required.

Miss Bree-Anna Finlay v Peel Thunder Football Club

DECISION

Consideration

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established