Miss Leigh Hill v Crossways Community Services

[2017] FWC 5023

[2017] FWC 5023

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Miss Leigh Hill
v
Crossways Community Services
(U2017/7531)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BULL PERTH, 29 SEPTEMBER 2017

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy, minimum employment period not met, application dismissed.

[1] On 13 July 2017, Miss Leigh Hill made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] Miss Hill advised that she commenced employment with Crossways Community Services in May 2017 and that her dismissal took effect on 23 June 2017. Miss Hill advised that she was notified of her dismissal on 23 June 2017. On the basis of this information, Miss Hill was employed for, at most, a period of no longer than two months.

[3] On 14 July 2017 the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) attempted to contact Miss Hill via phone and a voicemail message was left asking her to contact the Commission regarding her application.

[4] Correspondence was sent to Miss Hill on 14 July 2017 advising that on the basis of the information contained in the application, it appeared that she had not served the minimum employment period of six months, as per s.383 of the FW Act. The correspondence directed Miss Hill to advise the Commission within 14 days whether or not she wished to proceed with her application.

[5] On 27 July 2017 the Commission made a telephone call to Miss Hill regarding her application and a voicemail message was left advising Miss Hill that if no response was received from her, the matter may be dismissed and subject to a published decision, available via the Commission's website.

[6] On 27 July 2017 further correspondence was sent to Miss Hill requesting she advise the Commission by 3 August 2017 whether or not she wished to proceed with her application.

[7] On 8 August 2017 Miss Hill contacted the Commission to advise that she would provide the Commission with further material to demonstrate that she had served the minimum employment period by close of business that day.

[8] No further material from Ms Hill was received by the Commission.

[9] The Commission made two further attempts to contact Ms Hill in respect of the further material she had said she would file, and a voice mail was left advising her that the material had not been received. Ms Hill was requested to urgently contact the Commission.

[10] To date, Miss Hill has not replied to the Commission and no further material has been filed.

[11] 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.

[12] Section 383 of the FW Act sets out the minimum employment period:

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.

[13] In the circumstances of this matter and on the material before the Commission, I am satisfied Miss Hill has not completed the required minimum employment period and her application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[14] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

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.

[15] Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR596406>