Naomi N Duaka v G.J. & K. Cleaning Services Pty. Limited

Case [2025] FWC 2764


[2025] FWC 2764

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Naomi N Duaka
v

G.J. & K. Cleaning Services Pty. Limited

(U2025/11492)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BELL

MELBOURNE, 17 SEPTEMBER 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.

  1. On 11 July 2025, Mrs Naomi N Duaka made an unfair dismissal application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

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

  1. Mrs Duaka stated in her application that she commenced employment with G.J. & K. Cleaning Services Pty. Limited on 8 March 2025 and that her dismissal took effect on 10 July 2025.

  1. 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 Mrs Duaka, her period of employment was less than 6 months.

  1. On 21 July 2025, Commission staff emailed Mrs Duaka informing her that she had not served the applicable minimum employment period based on the information that she had provided in her application. The email directed Mr Nicklason to file evidence to show that he had served the minimum employment period. On 4 August 2025, Mrs Duaka called the Commission advising that the correct start date of her employment was 8 February 2025 and Commission staff advised that she still did not meet the minimum employment period. Mrs Duaka stated that she did meet the minimum employment period and wanted the matter to continue.

  1. On 8 September 2025, a final attempt was made to contact Mrs Duaka by email, which required a response by 15 September 2025. Mrs Duaka has not since responded to the Commission’s email.

Section 587 – General Principles

  1. 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.

  1. The power under s.587 should be used with caution, particularly if the matter involves complex questions of fact or law. An application should not be dismissed under s.587 unless it is very clear that there are no reasonable prospects of success and the power under s.587 is not available if there are disputed facts that could affect the outcome of the proceedings.

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

Does Duaka’s application have any reasonable prospects of success?

  1. The Commission cannot consider the fairness of Mrs Duaka’s dismissal until it is clear that she is eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim, whether her start date is 8 February 2025 or 8 March 2025.

  1. The information provided by Mrs Duaka indicates that she is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because she was employed for less than six months.

  1. I am satisfied that Mrs Duaka’s claim has no reasonable prospect of success and that it is appropriate to dismiss her application. I make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mrs Naomi N Duaka on 11 July 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR791783>

Details
AGLC
Naomi N Duaka v G.J. & K. Cleaning Services Pty. Limited [2025] FWC 2764
Case
[2025] FWC 2764
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Naomi N Duaka lodged an application for unfair dismissal against G.J. & K. Cleaning Services Pty. Limited under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. She alleged that she was dismissed on 10 July 2025, following a period of employment commencing on 8 March 2025. The Fair Work Commission, under the leadership of Deputy President Bell, assessed the application and ultimately concluded that it had no reasonable prospects of success.

The primary legal issue the Commission needed to decide was whether Mrs Duaka had completed the requisite minimum employment period to be eligible for an unfair dismissal application. Section 382 of the Act stipulates that an applicant must have served a minimum period of employment before dismissal. The minimum period is defined in section 383 as either six months or twelve months, contingent upon whether the employer was a small business at the time of dismissal. Mrs Duaka’s initial claim indicated that she had not met the six-month requirement. Despite subsequent attempts to adjust her start date to 8 February 2025, the Commission found that even this revised date did not satisfy the eligibility criteria.

Deputy President Bell reasoned that the application could be dismissed under section 587 of the Act on the Commission’s initiative, given that it had become clear there were no reasonable prospects of success. The Commission exercised this power judiciously, ensuring that Mrs Duaka had been given a fair opportunity to present evidence that her application could succeed. However, the information provided by Mrs Duaka did not substantiate her eligibility, as her employment period remained below the statutory threshold regardless of the start date. Therefore, the application was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that Mrs Duaka’s application for unfair dismissal be dismissed under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. This decision underscored the importance of meeting the minimum employment period requirement before an applicant can proceed with an unfair dismissal claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.