Stevie Cox v Proserpine Nursing Home Summary

[2025] FWC 360

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Stevie Cox
v

Proserpine Nursing Home

(U2024/9953)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 7 FEBRUARY 2025

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

On 26 August 2024 Miss Stevie Cox 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 Miss Cox’s application has no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed.

Miss Cox indicated in her Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application that she commenced employment with Proserpine Nursing Home on 1 July 2024 and that her dismissal took effect on 26 August 2024. On the information provided by Miss Cox, she was employed for 1 month, 3 weeks and 5 days.

Sections 382 and 383 of the Act provide that a person can only be 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 Miss Cox the period of employment was less than 6 months.

Commission staff tried to contact Miss Cox on the following dates:

·   30 August 2024 by phone
·   4 September 2024 by letter
·   25 September 2024 by phone
·   31 December 2024 by email

Staff sought further information from Miss Cox about whether she had served the minimum employment period.

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 relevant provisions of s.587 are:

“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.

…

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on 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 Miss Cox’s application have any reasonable prospects of success?

The Commission cannot consider the fairness of Miss Cox’s dismissal until it is satisfied that she is eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim.

The information provided by Miss Cox on her Form F2 application strongly indicates that she is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because she does not appear to have served the minimum employment period.

Miss Cox had the opportunity to provide information that could show that she had in fact completed the minimum employment period. However Miss Cox has not provided any information that is consistent with having served the minimum employment period.

I am satisfied that Miss Cox has had the opportunity to put her case for consideration on all matters material to the making of the decision to dismiss her application under s.587 (see Bond at [15]-[16]).

I am satisfied that Miss Cox’s claim has no reasonable prospect of success within the meaning of s.587(1)(c), and that it is appropriate in the circumstances to dismiss her application on the Commission’s own initiative using the facility available in s.587(3)(a).

I have decided to dismiss Miss Cox’s unfair dismissal application and make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Miss Cox on 26 August 2024 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The Fair Work Commission presided over an application for unfair dismissal brought by Stevie Cox against Proserpine Nursing Home. Cox alleged she was unfairly dismissed on 26 August 2024, after having commenced employment with Proserpine Nursing Home on 1 July 2024. The Commission was tasked with determining whether Cox's dismissal was unfair, and whether she was eligible to make such a claim under the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary issue revolved around Cox's eligibility to make an unfair dismissal claim, given her short tenure with the nursing home. Specifically, the Commission needed to ascertain whether Cox had completed the minimum employment period required to be eligible for such a claim.

The Fair Work Act 2009 stipulates that an employee must complete a minimum employment period before they can make an unfair dismissal claim. This period is defined as either six months or twelve months, depending on whether the employer was a small business at the time of the dismissal. Based on the information provided, Cox had been employed for approximately one month, three weeks, and five days, which is significantly less than the required minimum period. Despite multiple attempts by the Commission to obtain further information from Cox regarding her employment period, she failed to provide any evidence that she had met the minimum employment requirement.

The Commission considered its power under section 587 of the Act to dismiss an application on its own initiative if it has no reasonable prospects of success. The Commission had to ensure that Cox had a fair opportunity to demonstrate that her claim had reasonable prospects of success. However, given the clear evidence of Cox's short employment period and her failure to provide any countervailing information, the Commission concluded that Cox's application had no reasonable prospects of success. Therefore, the Commission dismissed Cox's unfair dismissal application under section 587(3)(a) on its own initiative.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission dismissed Stevie Cox's unfair dismissal application. The Commission found that Cox had not completed the minimum employment period required to be eligible for an unfair dismissal claim, and that her application had no reasonable prospects of success. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and no further action will be taken on this matter.

Stevie Cox v Proserpine Nursing Home

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established