Tanesha Griffen v Orthobay Pty Limited

Case [2023] FWC 495


[2023] FWC 495

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Tanesha Griffen
v

Orthobay Pty Limited

(U2023/908)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 28 FEBRUARY 2023

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

  1. On 6 February 2023 Ms Tanesha Griffen 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. Ms Griffen advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that she commenced employment with Orthobay Pty Limited on 22 November 2022 and was notified of her dismissal on 2 February 2023.

  1. The Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Griffen’s nominated email address advising Ms Griffen that, on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Ms Griffen to file any documents/evidence to support her claim that she had served the required minimum employment period. That correspondence also warned that if she did not contact the Commission within 14 days the application may be dismissed without further notice. An SMS notification was also sent to Ms Griffen’s nominated telephone number requesting that she contact the Commission.

  1. As the required documentation was not received, on 21 February 2023 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Griffen on her nominated telephone number however, Ms Griffen could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting that she called back regarding minimum employment period not met.

  1. To date Ms Griffen 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 Ms Griffen 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 Ms Griffen 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

<PR751256>

Details
AGLC
Tanesha Griffen v Orthobay Pty Limited [2023] FWC 495
Case
[2023] FWC 495
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tanesha Griffen applied to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal after being dismissed by Orthobay Pty Limited. Griffen claimed she was dismissed on 2 February 2023 after starting employment on 22 November 2022. The Commission found that Griffen had not completed the minimum employment period required by the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) and dismissed her application under section 587(1)(c) of the FW Act. The Commission had informed Griffen that her application would be dismissed if she did not provide evidence of completing the minimum employment period within 14 days. Despite attempts to contact her and warnings, Griffen did not respond.

The legal issues in this case included whether Griffen had completed the required minimum employment period and whether her application had a reasonable prospect of success. Under section 382 of the FW Act, a person must complete a minimum employment period to be protected from unfair dismissal. Section 383 of the FW Act specifies that for a non-small business employer, the minimum employment period is six months. Section 587(1)(c) of the FW Act allows the Commission to dismiss an application if it has no reasonable prospect of success. The Commission concluded that Griffen had not completed the required minimum employment period and her application lacked a reasonable prospect of success.

The Commission dismissed Griffen’s application under section 587(1)(c) of the FW Act. The Commission found that Griffen had not provided evidence to show she had completed the required minimum employment period. As a result, the application had no reasonable prospect of success. The Commission had warned Griffen that her application would be dismissed if she did not provide the required evidence within 14 days, but she did not respond to the Commission’s correspondence or attempts to contact her.

The Commission dismissed the application for unfair dismissal on the basis that Griffen had not completed the required minimum employment period and the application had no reasonable prospect of success. The Commission ordered that the application be dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the FW Act.

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.