Sheriden Taua-Robert v Kent Moving and Storage

[2013] FWC 2655

[2013] FWC 2655

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Sheriden Taua-Robert
v
Kent Moving and Storage
(U2012/16884)

COMMISSIONER JONES MELBOURNE, 7 MAY 2013

Minimum Employment Period - Application dismissed under s.587 of the Act.

[1] On 17 December 2012, an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a remedy for unfair dismissal was lodged by Mr Taua-Robert (the Applicant).

[2] The Form 2 - Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal (the Application) filed by the Applicant notes that he commenced employment with Kent Moving and Storage (the Respondent) on 3 June 2012 and that his dismissal took effect on 3 December 2012.

[1] On 22 January 2013, correspondence was 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 he wished to proceed with his Application.

[2] On 6 February 2013, further correspondence was sent to the Applicant requiring him to advise the Commission within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his Application. To date no response has been received.

[3] 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

[4] 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.

[5] 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.

[6] 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.

[7] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied the Applicant does not intend to prosecute the application.

[8] I have decided, having regard to the circumstances of this matter, to dismiss the application pursuant to s.587 for want of prosecution. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR536160>