Tara Link v KD Sharp & KM Lewis

Case [2022] FWC 2785


[2022] FWC 2785

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Tara Link
v

KD Sharp & KM Lewis

(U2022/9476)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 18 OCTOBER 2022

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

  1. On 23 September 2022 Ms Tara Link 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 Link advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that she commenced employment with KD Sharp & KM Lewis on 4 May 2022 and that she was notified of her dismissal on 4 September 2022.

  1. On 25 September 2022 the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Link’s nominated email address advising her that on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Ms Link 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.

  1. As the required documentation was not received, on 7 October 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Link via her nominated telephone number. However, Ms Link could not be reached. A voicemail message was left on a voice to text service requesting she contact the Commission to discuss her application.

  1. To date, Ms Link 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 of at least the 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 that:

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. Having regard to the circumstances of this matter I am satisfied that as Ms Link has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act, her application has no reasonable prospect of success. As such, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act. An order[1] to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER


[1] PR746928

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR746927>

Details
AGLC
Tara Link v KD Sharp & KM Lewis [2022] FWC 2785
Case
[2022] FWC 2785
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Tara Link v KD Sharp & KM Lewis, Ms. Tara Link sought a remedy for unfair dismissal from the Fair Work Commission, arguing she was dismissed without having served the minimum employment period required under the Fair Work Act 2009. Ms. Link claimed she was employed by KD Sharp & KM Lewis from 4 May 2022 and notified of her dismissal on 4 September 2022. The Commission issued a correspondence on 25 September 2022, indicating that based on the information provided, Ms. Link had not served the minimum employment period and directed her to provide evidence to support her claim. Despite multiple attempts to contact Ms. Link, she did not respond to the Commission’s correspondence, leading to the dismissal of her application.

The central legal issue was whether Ms. Link had served the requisite minimum employment period as stipulated in the Fair Work Act 2009. Under Section 383 of the Act, the minimum employment period is six months for employers who are not small business employers. Given Ms. Link's claim of employment from 4 May 2022 to 4 September 2022, it was evident she had not met the six-month threshold. Consequently, the Commission had to determine whether her application had a reasonable prospect of success in light of this insufficiency.

The Commissioner found that Ms. Link had not served the minimum employment period, and hence, her application had no reasonable prospect of success. Section 587(1) of the Act permits the Commission to dismiss an application if it has no reasonable prospect of success. As Ms. Link did not provide the necessary documentation to support her claim of having served the minimum employment period, the application was dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the Act. An order will be issued to this effect shortly.

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.