Naim Ahmed v Squadron Energy Services Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 3030

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Naim Ahmed
v

Squadron Energy Services Pty Ltd

(U2025/11728)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 9 OCTOBER 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative - application has no reasonable prospects of success.

On 16 July 2025, Mr Naim Ahmed made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

For the following reasons I am satisfied that Mr Ahmed’s application has no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed.

In his Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application Mr Ahmed indicated that he commenced employment with Squadron Energy Services Pty Ltd on 17 February 2025 and that his dismissal took effect on 13 May 2025. On the information provided by Mr Ahmed, he was employed for 2 months, 3 weeks and 5 days.

Sections 382 and 383 of the Act provide that a person is only eligible to make an unfair dismissal application if they have completed a minimum period of employment before their dismissal. Section 383 defines the minimum employment period to be either 6 months or 12 months, depending on whether the respondent was a small business employer at the time of the dismissal. On the information provided by Mr Ahmed the period of employment was less than 6 months.

Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Ahmed on 30 July 2025 by telephone, SMS and email regarding the Minimum Employment Period.

Section 587 – General Principles

Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative in the early stages of the proceedings. Protracted proceedings can be avoided when there is no reasonable prospect of an outcome other than the dismissal of the application.

The power under s.587 should be used with caution, particularly if the matter involves complex questions of fact or law (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [11]-[16] (Bond)). An application should not be dismissed under s.587 unless it is very clear that there are no reasonable prospects of success. As such the power under s.587 is not available if there are disputed facts that could affect the outcome of the proceedings.

Importantly, applicants must be given a fair opportunity to show that their application does in fact have some reasonable prospects of success.

Does Mr Ahmed’s application have any reasonable prospects of success?

The Commission cannot consider the fairness of Mr Ahmed’s dismissal until it is clear that he is eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim.

The information provided by Mr Ahmed on his Form F2 application strongly indicates that he is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because he does not appear to have served the minimum employment period.

Mr Ahmed had the opportunity to provide information that could show that he had in fact completed the minimum employment period. However Mr Ahmed has not provided any information that is consistent with him having done so. Mr Ahmed has also had the opportunity to put his case for consideration on all matters material to the decision to dismiss the application under s.587 (see Bond at [15]-[16]).

I am satisfied that Mr Ahmed’s claim has no reasonable prospect of success within the meaning of s.587(1)(c), and that it is appropriate in the circumstances to dismiss his application on the Commission’s own initiative using the facility available in s.587(3)(a). I make the following order:

A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Naim Ahmed on 16 July 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the matter of Naim Ahmed v Squadron Energy Services Pty Ltd, the applicant, Mr Naim Ahmed, applied to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The dispute pertains to the termination of Mr Ahmed's employment by Squadron Energy Services Pty Ltd, which he claims occurred under unfair circumstances. The application was heard and decided by Deputy President Easton at the Fair Work Commission in Sydney.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr Ahmed's application had reasonable prospects of success. This hinged on whether Mr Ahmed had satisfied the minimum employment period requirement before his dismissal, which is a prerequisite for eligibility to lodge an unfair dismissal claim. The relevant sections of the Act, specifically sections 382, 383, and 587, were central to the court's analysis.

The Fair Work Commission found that Mr Ahmed's employment duration, as stated in his application, was less than the minimum employment period required by the Act. Despite attempts to contact Mr Ahmed for further information, he did not provide any evidence that would indicate he had completed the requisite period of employment. The court held that since Mr Ahmed had not met the threshold eligibility criteria, his application lacked reasonable prospects of success. Consequently, the application was dismissed on the Commission's initiative under section 587 of the Act, as it was clear that there were no reasonable prospects of a favourable outcome for Mr Ahmed.

The court made an order dismissing Mr Ahmed's application for an unfair dismissal remedy, concluding that he was not eligible to make such a claim due to the insufficient employment period.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established