Penelope Morton v Illawarra Coal Holdings Pty Ltd

Case [2022] FWC 3221


[2022] FWC 3221

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Penelope Morton
v

Illawarra Coal Holdings Pty Ltd

(U2022/10829)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 23 DECEMBER 2022

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

  1. On 11 November 2022 Ms Penelope Morton 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).

  1. Ms Morton advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that she commenced employment with Illawarra Coal Holdings Pty Ltd on 16 May 2022 and that her dismissal took effect on 2 November 2022.

  1. On 14 November 2022 the Commission sent correspondence to Ms Morton’s nominated email address advising her that, on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Ms Morton to file any documents or other evidence to support their claim that she had served the required minimum employment period. That correspondence also warned that if she did not contact the Commission within 14 days the application may be dismissed without further notice.

  1. As the required documentation was not received, on 30 November 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Morton on her nominated telephone number. However, Ms Morton could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting that a call back.

  1. To date Ms Morton has not replied to the Commission’s correspondence.

  1. Section 382 of the FW Act provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if she have completed a period of employment.

  1. 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.

  1. Section 587(1) of the FW Act 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 prospect of success.

  1. As Ms Morton has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act, I have determined that the application has no reasonable prospect of success.

  1. As such, I order that the application be dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR748650>

Details
AGLC
Penelope Morton v Illawarra Coal Holdings Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 3221
Case
[2022] FWC 3221
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was presented with an application for relief from unfair dismissal by Penelope Morton against Illawarra Coal Holdings Pty Ltd. Ms Morton claimed that she was unfairly dismissed on 2 November 2022, having commenced employment with Illawarra Coal Holdings Pty Ltd on 16 May 2022. The central issue before the Commission was whether Ms Morton had completed the minimum employment period required by the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) to be protected from unfair dismissal. Under section 382 of the FW Act, protection from unfair dismissal is contingent upon the completion of a minimum employment period. The Act stipulates that for employers who are not small business employers, this period is six months, while for small business employers, it is one year. The Commission's task was to determine if Ms Morton had met the six-month threshold, given that it was not explicitly stated whether Illawarra Coal Holdings Pty Ltd qualified as a small business employer.

The Commission examined the evidence provided by Ms Morton and found that she had not completed the requisite six-month employment period. Consequently, the application was deemed to have no reasonable prospect of success. Under section 587(1)(c) of the FW Act, the Commission has the authority to dismiss an application if it finds that it has no reasonable prospect of success. The Commission communicated with Ms Morton, providing her with an opportunity to furnish evidence that she had completed the minimum employment period. Despite this, Ms Morton did not respond to the Commission’s correspondence or attempts to contact her. Given the absence of any evidence to support her claim, the Commission concluded that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

In light of the findings, the Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal under section 587(1)(c) of the FW Act. The dismissal was based on the determination that Ms Morton had not met the minimum employment period required to be protected from unfair dismissal. This decision was made in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act, which empower the Commission to dismiss applications that lack a reasonable prospect of success. The Commission’s decision was communicated to Ms Morton, and no further action was taken in her application.

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.