| [2022] FWC 1749 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Pamela Cook
v
Maffra Hot Bake
(U2022/6350)
| COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 7 JULY 2022 |
Application for relief from unfair dismissal – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.
On 16 June 2022 Ms Pamela Cook made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).
Ms Cook advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that she commenced employment with Maffra Hot Bake on 3 April 2022 and that her dismissal took effect on 14 June 2022.
On 17 June 2022, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Cook on her nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left requesting Ms Cook contact the Commission to discuss her eligibility for an unfair dismissal application.
Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Cook’s nominated email address advising Ms Cook that on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Ms Cook to file any documents/evidence to support her claim that she had served the required minimum employment period. That correspondence also warned that if Ms Cook did not contact the Commission within 14 days, the application may be dismissed without further notice.
As the required documentation was not received, on 1 July 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Cook via telephone. However, Ms Cook could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting Ms Cook urgently contact the Commission and advising that if no contact was made the matter may be dismissed.
To date, Ms Cook has not replied to the Commission’s correspondence.
Section 382 of the FW Act provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if they have completed a period of employment of at least the minimum employment period.
Section 383 of the FW Act sets out the 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.
Section 587(1) of the FW Act provides that:
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 prospect of success.
Having regard to the circumstances of this matter I am satisfied that as Ms Cook has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act, her application has no reasonable prospect of success. As such, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act. An order[1] to this effect will be issued with this decision.
COMMISSIONER
[1] PR743481.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR743480>
- AGLC
- Pamela Cook v Maffra Hot Bake [2022] FWC 1749
- Case
- [2022] FWC 1749
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue the Fair Work Commission had to decide was whether Cook had met the minimum employment period requirement to be eligible for protection from unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act. The minimum employment period is six months if the employer is not a small business, or one year if the employer is a small business. Given that Maffra Hot Bake is presumably a small business, the question hinged on whether Cook had been employed for at least one year before her dismissal.
The Fair Work Commission concluded that Cook had not completed the minimum employment period of one year as required by section 383 of the Fair Work Act. The Commission was unable to obtain any documentation from Cook to substantiate her claim that she had met this criterion, and after multiple attempts to contact her, the Commission determined that Cook's application had no reasonable prospect of success. Therefore, under section 587(1)(c) of the Act, the application was dismissed. The Commission issued an order dismissing the application and noted that Cook had not responded to the Commission's correspondence.
This dismissal signifies that Cook's application for relief from unfair dismissal was not proceeding further as she did not meet the statutory requirement of the minimum employment period. The Commission's decision highlights the necessity for applicants to meet the eligibility criteria for filing such claims under the Fair Work Act.
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.