Sandhya John v PCYC - [2025] FWC 2703

[2025] FWC 2703

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Sandhya John
v

PCYC

(U2025/4906)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative - application has no reasonable prospects of success.

On 20 April 2025, Ms Sandhya John made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

For the following reasons I am satisfied that Ms John’s application has no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed.

Ms John indicated in her Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application that she commenced employment on 15 October 2024 and that her dismissal took effect on 10 April 2025. On the information provided by Ms John, she was employed for 5 months, 3 weeks and 5 days.

Sections 382 and 383 of the Act provide that a person is only eligible to make an unfair dismissal application if they have completed a minimum period of employment before their dismissal. Section 383 defines the minimum employment period to be either 6 months or 12 months, depending on whether the respondent was a small business employer at the time of the dismissal. On the information provided by Ms John the period of employment was less than 6 months.

Commission staff attempted to contact Ms John on 28 April, 29 April, 30 April, 5 May, 9 May, 13 May and 25 June 2025 by telephone, SMS and email regarding the Minimum Employment Period.

On 5 May 2025, Ms John confirmed her start date and the date her dismissal took effect to Commission staff, however did not provide any additional relevant information regarding whether she had served the minimum employment period.

Ms John has been on notice of the likely consequences if she does not provide further information that supports her eligibility to make the application.

To date Ms John has not provided any further information that supports her eligibility to make the application.

Section 587 – General Principles

Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative in the early stages of the proceedings. Protracted proceedings can be avoided when there is no reasonable prospect of an outcome other than the dismissal of the application.

The power under s.587 should be used with caution, particularly if the matter involves complex questions of fact or law (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [11]-[16] (Bond)). An application should not be dismissed under s.587 unless it is very clear that there are no reasonable prospects of success. As such the power under s.587 is not available if there are disputed facts that could affect the outcome of the proceedings.

Importantly, applicants must be given a fair opportunity to show that their application does in fact have some reasonable prospects of success.

Does Ms John’s application have any reasonable prospects of success?

The Commission…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sandhya John v PCYC and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FWC 2703
Decision Date: 11 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sandhya John applied to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy against PCYC. She alleged she was dismissed without a fair process, but her application was dismissed by Deputy President Easton as she had not met the minimum employment period requirement under the Fair Work Act 2009. Ms John stated she had been employed from 15 October 2024 until her dismissal on 10 April 2025, a period of 5 months, 3 weeks and 5 days. The Commission requires that a person must have completed either a 6 or 12 month minimum employment period before making an unfair dismissal application, depending on whether the employer was a small business. As Ms John's employment period was less than 6 months, she did not meet this minimum requirement. Despite being notified of the consequences of not meeting the minimum period, Ms John did not provide any further information to demonstrate she had in fact completed the required employment period. The Deputy President found that Ms John's application had no reasonable prospects of success and dismissed it under section 587 of the Act. The Commission must ensure applicants are given a fair opportunity to show their application has reasonable prospects of success, but Ms John did not provide any information to support her claim. Therefore, the application was dismissed.

Orders