Sam Carroll v Brix & Co Limited Summary

[2024] FWC 3499

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Sam Carroll
v

Brix & Co Limited

(U2024/13493)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 16 DECEMBER 2024

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

Mr Sam Carroll applied under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy on 12 November 2024.

Mr Carroll stated in his unfair dismissal application (Form F2) that his employment with Brix & Co Limited (the Respondent) commenced on 5 August 2024 and his dismissal took effect on 31 October 2024.

On 15 November 2024, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Carroll’s nominated email address informing him that he had not served the applicable minimum employment period based on the information that he had provided in his Form F2. The correspondence directed Mr Carroll to file any documentation to support any claim that he had served the applicable minimum employment period under the Act. That correspondence also warned Mr Carroll that if he did not contact the Commission within 14 days, his application might be dismissed without further notice.

Later that same day, a SMS notification was sent to Mr Carroll’s nominated mobile number requesting him to contact the Commission.

The Commission did not receive any documentation in support of Mr Carroll’s Form F2 that could evidence that he had worked for the Respondent for the applicable minimum employment period.

On 22 November 2024, 28 November 2024 and 3 December 2024, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Carroll on his nominated telephone number. The calls were not answered and voicemail messages was left requesting Mr Carroll to urgently contact the Commission. This was because the information provided in his Form F2 suggested that he may not have served the minimum employment period to be protected from unfair dismissal under the Act.

Mr Carroll has not responded to the Commission’s multiple attempts to contact him in relation to his Form F2 application.

Section 382 of the Act sets out that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if, inter alia, they completed a period of employment with their employer of at least the minimum employment period.

Section 383 of the Act sets out the meaning of 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.” (bold and italicised text in the original)

Section 587 of the Act relevantly 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 prospects of success.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3‑2, see section 399A.
…
(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.” (bold text in the original)

A person applying for an unfair dismissal remedy under the Act needs to have completed a period of employment of at least 6 months with their employer to be protected from unfair dismissal. The material before the Commission indicates that Mr Carroll has not satisfied this requirement and, therefore, I am persuaded that his application has no reasonable prospects of success. As such, Mr Carroll’s unfair dismissal application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the Act. An order[1] to this effect will be issued with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] PR782481

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Sam Carroll filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal against Brix & Co Limited under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. He claimed that his employment with Brix & Co Limited commenced on 5 August 2024 and his dismissal took effect on 31 October 2024. The Fair Work Commission notified Mr Carroll that he had not served the applicable minimum employment period required to be protected from unfair dismissal under the Act, and directed him to provide documentation to support his claim that he had completed the requisite employment period. Despite multiple attempts to contact him and requests for documentation, Mr Carroll did not respond to the Commission’s correspondence. The legal issue before the Commission was whether Mr Carroll had completed the minimum employment period of six months, as required by section 382 of the Act, to be eligible for protection from unfair dismissal.

The Fair Work Commission considered the information provided by Mr Carroll and the absence of any documentation supporting his claim of having completed the minimum employment period. The Commission concluded that Mr Carroll had not met the threshold requirement for protection from unfair dismissal under the Act. As such, the Commission found that Mr Carroll’s application had no reasonable prospects of success. Under section 587(1)(c) of the Act, the Commission dismissed Mr Carroll’s unfair dismissal application on its own initiative. The Commission issued an order to this effect with the decision.

Sam Carroll v Brix & Co Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established