| [2023] FWC 18 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DIRECTIONS |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Sergio Capozzi
v
Lsyn Pty Ltd
(U2022/11656)
| COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 4 JANUARY 2023 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.
On 8 December 2022 Mr Sergio Capozzi 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).
Mr Capozzi advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that he commenced employment with Lsyn Pty Ltd on 30 May 2022 and he was notified of his dismissal on 28 November 2022.
On 9 December 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Capozzi on his nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left requesting that Mr Capozzi contact the Commission to confirm his dates if employment.
Later that day the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Capozzi’s nominated email address advising Mr Capozzi that, on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, he had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Mr Capozzi to file any documents/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.
As the required documentation was not received, on 22 December 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Capozzi on his nominated telephone number. However, Mr Capozzi could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting that he contact the Commission urgently to confirm his dates of employment.
To date Mr Capozzi has not replied to the Commission’s correspondence.
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 Capozzi has not completed the required minimum employment period.
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.
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.
As Mr Capozzi 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 the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR749385>
- AGLC
- Sergio Capozzi v Lsyn Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 18
- Case
- [2023] FWC 18
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key issue was whether Mr Capozzi had completed the minimum employment period required for protection from unfair dismissal. Under s.383 of the FW Act, if the employer is not a small business employer, the minimum employment period is six months. If the employer is a small business employer, the minimum employment period is one year. The Commission needed to determine whether Lsyn was a small business employer and if Mr Capozzi had been employed for the requisite period. The Commission also needed to decide if the application could be dismissed under s.587 of the FW Act for lacking a reasonable prospect of success.
The Commission found that Mr Capozzi had not completed the required minimum employment period. Lsyn was not classified as a small business employer, so the minimum employment period was six months. Mr Capozzi had been employed for less than six months, from 30 May 2022 until his dismissal on 28 November 2022. As the application was unlikely to succeed, the Commission dismissed the application under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act.
The Commission ordered that Mr Capozzi’s application for unfair dismissal be dismissed. The Commission noted that Mr Capozzi had not responded to requests to provide evidence of his employment period. Given that he had not completed the minimum employment period, the application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
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.