Shawn Elwell v David Drummond

Case [2023] FWC 863


[2023] FWC 863

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Shawn Elwell
v

David Drummond

(U2023/2099)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 11 APRIL 2023

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

  1. On 14 March 2023 Shawn Elwell 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 Elwell advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that he commenced employment with David Drummond on 6 December 2022 and that his dismissal took effect on 14 March 2023.

  1. On 17 March 2023 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Elwell on his nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left requesting a return call to the Commission.

  1. On 20 March 2023 the Commission sent correspondence to Mr Elwell’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 Elwell 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. An SMS notification was also sent to Mr Elwell’s nominated telephone number requesting that he contact the Commission.

  1. As the required documentation was not received, on 5 April 2023 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Elwell on his nominated telephone number. However, he could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting a return call to the Commission.

  1. To date Mr Elwell 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 Elwell 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 Elwell has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act the application has no reasonable prospect of success. As such, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act.


COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR760997>

Details
AGLC
Shawn Elwell v David Drummond [2023] FWC 863
Case
[2023] FWC 863
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shawn Elwell applied to the Fair Work Commission for relief from unfair dismissal against David Drummond. The application was pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr Elwell claimed he was dismissed by Mr Drummond on 14 March 2023, having commenced employment on 6 December 2022. The Commission was required to determine whether the application was frivolous or vexatious, or whether it had a reasonable prospect of success. In particular, the Commission was required to decide whether Mr Elwell had completed the minimum employment period under the Fair Work Act 2009, and if not, whether the application could proceed.

The Commission considered the minimum employment period under section 383 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which is six months for employers who are not small business employers. The Commission was satisfied that Mr Elwell had not completed the minimum employment period. The Commission attempted to contact Mr Elwell on several occasions to request documentation to support his claim that he had completed the minimum employment period, but did not receive any response. The Commission was satisfied that the application had no reasonable prospect of success because Mr Elwell had not completed the minimum employment period. Accordingly, the application was dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009.

This decision provides guidance to applicants who seek relief from unfair dismissal that they must satisfy the minimum employment period under the Fair Work Act 2009, and that if they do not, their application will be dismissed. The Commission's decision also highlights the importance of responding to requests for information from the Commission to avoid the risk of dismissal.

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.