Mr Daniel Crighton v Equity Transport Group Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 1329

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Daniel Crighton
v

Equity Transport Group Pty Ltd

(U2025/2587)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SLEVIN

SYDNEY, 13 MAY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

Daniel Crighton on 6 March 2025 filed an application with the Commission pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal (the application). The employer, Equity Transport Group Pty Ltd (Equity) filed a response to the application on 18 March 2025. That response raised a jurisdictional objection to the application.

For an employee to be a person protected from unfair dismissal within the meaning of s.382 of the Act they must have completed a minimum employment period (MEP). Equity is not a small business. The applicable MEP is six months.

On 14 April my chambers wrote to the parties drawing attention to the objection and inviting the Mr Crighton to submit any material in relation to Equity’s objection by 24 April 2025. No material was received.

On 2 May 2025 I issued further directions for Mr Crighton to file materials in relation to Equity’s objection and any materials in support of his application generally by no later than 9 May 2025. I also indicated that in the absence of additional material I would proceed to determine the matter on the material filed. Nothing was received from Mr Crighton.

On the material before me Mr Crighton did not complete the applicable MEP. Equity pointed to a number of periods of unpaid leave taken by the Applicant. Section 22(2)(b) of the Act provides that periods of unpaid leave do not count as service for the purposes of ss. 383 and 384 of the Act.

When the periods of unpaid leave are deducted from the total period of Mr Crighton’s employment with Equity there is not six months continuous service.

The Applicant has been provided with ample opportunity to contest Equity’s objection and the basis advanced for it. The Applicant has been placed on notice that I intended to determine the matter.

I find that the Applicant did not complete the applicable MEP and, for that reason, was not a person protected from unfair dismissal.

I therefore uphold Equity’s jurisdictional objection.

The application is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application by Mr Daniel Crighton, who sought a remedy for unfair dismissal against his employer, Equity Transport Group Pty Ltd. The employer raised an objection to the application on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that Mr Crighton did not meet the minimum employment period (MEP) required to be protected from unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. Equity contended that Mr Crighton had not completed six months of continuous service, due to periods of unpaid leave, which are excluded from the calculation of service under the Act. Mr Crighton was given multiple opportunities to provide evidence to counter the employer's objection, but failed to do so.

The legal issue before the Deputy President was whether Mr Crighton had completed the requisite minimum employment period, thereby making him eligible for protection under the Act. The Deputy President reviewed the employer's objection and the evidence provided, noting that Mr Crighton had periods of unpaid leave that were excluded from the calculation of his continuous service. Given the lack of any response from Mr Crighton to counter the employer's objection, the Deputy President concluded that Mr Crighton did not complete the required six months of continuous service. Consequently, the Deputy President found that Mr Crighton was not a person protected from unfair dismissal, upheld the employer's jurisdictional objection, and dismissed the application.

The application for unfair dismissal was dismissed, and the Deputy President found that Mr Crighton did not meet the minimum employment period required to be protected from unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. The periods of unpaid leave taken by Mr Crighton were excluded from the calculation of his continuous service, resulting in less than six months of continuous employment. Given the absence of any response from Mr Crighton to counter the employer's objection, the Deputy President determined that the application did not meet the jurisdictional requirements and therefore dismissed the application.

Mr Daniel Crighton v Equity Transport Group Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established