| [2022] FWC 832 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Tara Mashakada
v
Sycamore Group
(U2022/3539)
| COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 11 APRIL 2022 |
Application for relief from unfair dismissal – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.
On 24 March 2022 Ms Tara Mashakada 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).
Ms Mashakada advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that she commenced employment with Sycamore Group on 10 January 2022 and that she was notified of her dismissal on 21 March 2022.
On 25 March 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Mashakada on her nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left requesting she contact the Commission.
Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Mashakada advising that on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Ms Mashakada 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.
As the required documentation was not received, on 7 April 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Mashakada via telephone. However, Ms Mashakada could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting she contact the Commission.
To date, Ms Mashakada has not replied to the Commission’s correspondence.
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.
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.
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.
Having regard to the circumstances of this matter I am satisfied that as Ms Mashakada 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 with this decision.
COMMISSIONER
[1] PR740259.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR740258>
- AGLC
- Tara Mashakada v Sycamore Group [2022] FWC 832
- Case
- [2022] FWC 832
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue for determination was whether Ms Mashakada had completed the minimum employment period under the Fair Work Act 2009, and therefore was protected from unfair dismissal. Section 382 of the Fair Work 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. The minimum employment period is six months if the employer is not a small business employer. Given that Sycamore Group is not a small business employer, Ms Mashakada needed to have been employed for at least six months to be protected from unfair dismissal.
The Commissioner found that Ms Mashakada had not completed the required minimum employment period, as she had only been employed for less than three months. Despite attempts to contact Ms Mashakada to request evidence to support her claim that she had served the required minimum employment period, she did not respond. As a result, the Commissioner was satisfied that Ms Mashakada's application had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act.
The Commissioner ordered that an order dismissing the application be issued with the decision. The order noted that Ms Mashakada's application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed as she had not completed the required minimum employment period under the Fair Work 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.