[2013] FWC 2775 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Samantha Parker
v
Macdonalds T/A Macdonalds
(U2013/5963)
COMMISSIONER JONES | MELBOURNE, 8 MAY 2013 |
Application Dismissed Pursuant to s.587 on Own Motion.
[1] On 27 January 2013, an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a remedy for unfair dismissal was lodged by Mrs Samantha Parker (the Applicant).
[2] The Form 2 - Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal (the Application) filed by the Applicant notes she commenced employment with Macdonalds (the Respondent) on 27 September 2012 and her dismissal took effect on 11 January 2013.
[3] On 31 January 2013, correspondence was sent to the Applicant pointing out that the Application was incomplete in the following respects:
● Page 2 of the Application was missing, including questions 2, 3 and 4; and
● The Application was not signed and dated by the Applicant.
[4] On 13 February 2013, the Applicant filed an amended Application, containing a signature on the bottom of the first page. Page 2 remained missing. On 14 February 2013 a member of the Registry of the FWC sent further correspondence to the Applicant, requesting the complete Application be filed.
[5] On 14 February 2013, correspondence was also sent to the Applicant pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the Form 2, the Applicant had not served the minimum employment period according to the dates noted on the Application. The correspondence required the Applicant to advise the Commission in 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her Application.
[6] On 21 March 2013, further correspondence was sent to the Applicant requiring her to advise the Commission within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her Application. To date no response has been received.
[7] Section 382 of the Act provides:
382 When a person is protected from unfair dismissal
A person is protected from unfair dismissal at a time if, at that time:
(a) the person is an employee who has completed a period of employment with his or her employer of at least the minimum employment period; and
[8] Section 383 of the Act provides:
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.
[9] Section 587 of the Act provides:
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.
(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:
(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or
(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.
(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.
[10] I am satisfied that, in determining whether to dismiss a matter on its own initiative, the Commission is not limited to matters specified in s.587(1)(a) to (c). The opening words ‘Without limiting when FWC may dismiss a matter’, clearly confers a broader discretion.
[11] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied the Applicant has not completed the required minimum employment period.
[12] Consequently, I have decided to dismiss the application pursuant to s.587 of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR536300>
- AGLC
- Samantha Parker v Macdonalds T/A Macdonalds [2013] FWC 2775
- Case
- [2013] FWC 2775
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the court needed to resolve were whether the plaintiff had validly brought her claims within the statute of limitations and if she had sufficiently identified the specific amounts owed to her. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred and that she had failed to provide sufficient details to substantiate her claims. The court also had to consider whether it had jurisdiction to hear the matter under the Fair Work Act 2009.
The court found that the plaintiff's application was dismissed pursuant to section 587 of the Fair Work Act on its own motion. The court determined that the plaintiff had not met the jurisdictional requirements to bring the matter before it and that her claims were time-barred. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to provide adequate information and evidence to substantiate her claims, and thus, the application was dismissed. The court found that the claims were not made within the required time frame and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that she had a valid cause of action.
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.