Ms Angie Turner v The Trustee for the Boscobel Trust

[2025] FWC 2877

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Ms Angie Turner
v

The Trustee For The Boscobel Trust

(U2025/13279)

COMMISSIONER P RYAN

SYDNEY, 26 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

Ms Angie Turner (Applicant) has made an application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) for a remedy, alleging that she had been unfairly dismissed from her employment with The Trustee for the Boscobel Trust (Respondent).

In its Form F3 Response, the Respondent objected to the application on the basis that it was small business employer and that the Applicant was employed for less than one year.

To be protected from unfair dismissal, a person must have completed a period of employment with their employer of at least the minimum employment period.[1] The minimum employment period for an employee employed by a small business employer is one year.

The Applicant agrees that the Respondent employed fewer than 15 employees at the time of her dismissal and that she was employed for less than one year. Accordingly, the Applicant is not a person protected from unfair dismissal.

The application is dismissed. An Order to that effect will be issued with this Decision.

COMMISSIONER

[1] See s.382 and s.383 of the Act.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Angie Turner applied for an unfair dismissal remedy against The Trustee for the Boscobel Trust. Turner claimed she was unfairly dismissed from her employment with the Trust, which objected on the basis that it was a small business employer with fewer than 15 employees, and Turner had been employed for less than one year. The central issue for the Commission was whether Turner qualified for protection from unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. Turner conceded that the Trust employed fewer than 15 people at the time of her dismissal and that her employment had lasted less than one year. Given these facts, the Commission found that Turner did not meet the minimum employment period required for protection against unfair dismissal. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The Commission examined the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act, specifically sections 382 and 383, which outline the criteria for protection from unfair dismissal. These provisions specify that employees of small business employers must complete a minimum employment period, which is one year, to be protected from unfair dismissal. As Turner had been employed for less than this period, she did not qualify for protection. The Commission concluded that since Turner did not meet the statutory requirements for protection, her application for an unfair dismissal remedy was rightly dismissed. The Commission issued an order dismissing the application accordingly.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established