| [2023] FWC 723 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Vanessa Turner
v
SMYC Pty Ltd
(U2023/1486)
| COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 27 MARCH 2023 |
Application for relief from unfair dismissal – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.
On 24 February 2023 Ms Vanessa Turner 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 Turner advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that she commenced employment with SMYC Pty Ltd on 5 September 2023 and that she was notified of her dismissal on 15 February 2023.
On 26 February 2023 the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Turner’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 Turner to file any documents or other 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.
On 2 March 2023 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Turner on her nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left requesting Ms Turner to call the Commission on the number provided as the requirement of the minimum employment period has not been satisfied.
As the required documentation was not received, on 23 March 2023 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Turner on their nominated telephone number. Ms Turner appeared to pick up the phone, however the connection was then lost. There was no capacity for a voicemail message to be left at this time.
To date Ms Turner 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. I am satisfied Ms Turner has not completed the required 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 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.
As Ms Turner has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act the application has no reasonable prospect of success. As such, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR760596>
- AGLC
- Vanessa Turner v SMYC Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 723
- Case
- [2023] FWC 723
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue in this case was whether Turner had completed the minimum employment period necessary to be protected from unfair dismissal under section 382 of the FW Act. Section 383 of the FW Act specifies the minimum employment period as either six months or one year, depending on whether the employer is classified as a small business employer. The Commission found that Turner had not provided evidence to substantiate that she had completed the requisite minimum employment period, and no response was received from Turner to the Commission's correspondence seeking such evidence. Given Turner's failure to meet this requirement, the application was assessed under section 587(1)(c) of the FW Act, which allows the FWC to dismiss an application if it has no reasonable prospect of success.
The Commission concluded that Turner's application had no reasonable prospect of success because she had not satisfied the minimum employment period stipulated in section 383 of the FW Act. Consequently, the application was dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the FW Act. The Commission's decision was based on Turner's inability to demonstrate that she had completed the necessary minimum employment period, a prerequisite for her claim under 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.