Mr Steven Tucci v Carpet Call (Holdings) Pty. Ltd

[2024] FWC 2685

[2024] FWC 2685

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Mr Steven Tucci
v

Carpet Call (Holdings) Pty. Ltd.

(U2024/7643)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY MELBOURNE, 26 SEPTEMBER 2024

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative

1. Mr Steven Tucci applied under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy on 2 July 2024.

1. Mr Tucci stated in his unfair dismissal application (Form F2) that his employment with Carpet Call (Holdings) Pty. Ltd. (the Respondent) commenced on 26 February 2024 and his dismissal took effect on 2 July 2024.

1. On 8 July 2024, the Commission contacted Mr Tucci on his nominated telephone number. This is because the information provided in his Form F2 suggested that he may not have served the minimum employment period to be protected from unfair dismissal under the Act. Mr Tucci informed the Commission that he was certain that his employment met the minimum employment period but could not confirm his exact employment dates. A request was made for Mr Tucci to provide his dates of employment with the Respondent to the Commission by reply email.

1. Shortly afterwards that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Tucci’s nominated email address informing him that he had not served the applicable minimum employment period based on the information that he had provided in his Form F2. The correspondence directed Mr Tucci to file any documentation to support any claim that he had served the applicable minimum employment period under the Act. That correspondence also warned Mr Tucci that if he did not contact the Commission within 14 days, his application might be dismissed without further notice. A SMS notification was sent to Mr Tucci’s nominated mobile number requesting him to contact the Commission.

1. The Commission made two attempts to contact Mr Tucci on his nominated telephone number on 10 July 2024. The Commission was not able to reach Mr Tucci. No voicemail facilities were available to leave a message.

1. The Commission attempted to contact Mr Tucci on his nominated telephone number on 11 July 2024 in relation to the minimum employment period. The call was answered but Mr Tucci informed the Commission that he was unable to speak to the Commission at that time and would call back.

1. The Commission did not receive any documentation in support of Mr Tucci’s Form F2 that could evidence that he had worked for the Respondent for the applicable minimum employment period within the 14 day timeframe specified in the correspondence dated 8 July 2024.

1. The Commission made a final attempt to contact Mr Tucci on his nominated telephone number on 22 July 2024. The call was answered but Mr Tucci informed the Commission that he was unable to speak at that time and would call back the next day. Mr Tucci was informed that his application was at risk of being dismissed if no contact was received by close of business on 23 July 2024 and that a decision would be published on the Commission’s website.

1. To date, Mr Tucci has not since responded to the Commission’s attempts to contact him in relation to his Form F2 application.

1. Section 382 of the Act sets out that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if, inter alia, they completed a period of employment with their employer of at least the minimum employment period.

1. Section 383 of the Act sets out the meaning of minimum employment period as follows:

“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.” (bold and italicised text in the original)

1. Section 587 of the Act relevantly provides as follows:

“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.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3‑2, see section 399A.

…

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.” (bold text in the original)

1. To be protected from unfair dismissal, a person applying for an unfair dismissal remedy under the Act needs to have completed a period of employment of at least 6 months with their employer. The material before the Commission indicates that Mr Tucci has not satisfied this requirement and, therefore, I am satisfied that his application has no reasonable prospects of success. As such, Mr Tucci’s unfair dismissal application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the Act. An order[1] to this effect will be issued with this decision.    

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] PR779695.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR779694>