Peter Cheang v Victorian Electoral Commission

Case [2022] FWC 3309


[2022] FWC 3309

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Peter Cheang
v

Victorian Electoral Commission

(U2022/11232)

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 24 November 2022 Mr Peter Cheang 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. Mr Cheang advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that he commenced employment with Victorian Electoral Commission on 14 November 2022 and he was notified of his dismissal on 15 November 2022.

  1. On 25 November 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Cheang on his nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left requesting he call the Commission.

  1. Later that day the Commission sent correspondence to Mr Cheang’s nominated email address advising him that, on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Mr Cheang to file any documents or other evidence to support his claim that he had served the required minimum employment period. That correspondence also warned that if he 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 7 December 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Cheang on his nominated telephone number. However, Mr Cheang could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting that he call the Commission.

  1. To date Mr Cheang 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 they have completed a period of employment. I am satisfied Mr Cheang has not completed the required minimum employment period.

  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 Mr Cheang has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act the application has no reasonable prospect of success. As such, I order that his application be dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR748971>

Details
AGLC
Peter Cheang v Victorian Electoral Commission [2022] FWC 3309
Case
[2022] FWC 3309
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission has ruled on an application for unfair dismissal by Peter Cheang against the Victorian Electoral Commission. Mr Cheang sought relief for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. He claimed to have been dismissed on 15 November 2022, having commenced employment with the Commission on 14 November 2022. The Commission found that Mr Cheang had not served the minimum employment period required by section 382 of the FW Act and, as a result, his application had no reasonable prospect of success. The Commission notified Mr Cheang that his application would be dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the FW Act.

The central legal issue was whether Mr Cheang had fulfilled the minimum employment period as stipulated by section 383 of the FW Act. Given the Commission is not a small business employer, the minimum employment period is six months. The Commission considered that, based on the information provided, Mr Cheang had not completed this period. As Mr Cheang did not provide any evidence to support his claim that he had served the required employment period, the Commission concluded that his application did not meet the threshold for consideration.

The Commission found that since Mr Cheang did not meet the minimum employment period requirement, his application was unlikely to succeed. Furthermore, the Commission considered Mr Cheang's failure to respond to multiple communications as an indication that his application was unlikely to succeed. Thus, the Commission exercised its discretion under section 587(1)(c) of the FW Act to dismiss Mr Cheang's application.

In conclusion, the Commission dismissed Mr Cheang's application for unfair dismissal. The Commission ordered that the application be dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the FW Act as it had no reasonable prospect of success due to Mr Cheang not having completed the required minimum employment period.

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.