Veronica Kelly v Emma Bridle

Case [2022] FWC 2666


[2022] FWC 2666

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Veronica Kelly
v

Emma Bridle

(U2022/9148)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 5 OCTOBER 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative.

  1. On 11 September 2022 Veronica Kelly 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 Kelly advised in the Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that she commenced employment with Emma Bridle on 28 August 2022 and that her dismissal took effect on 11 September 2022.

  1. On 13 September 2022 the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant on her nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left requesting she contact the Commission to discuss the minimum employment period.

  1. Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Kelly’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 Kelly 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 29 September 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Kelly on her nominated telephone number. However, Ms Kelly could not be reached. A voicemail message was left advising that she may not have met the minimum employment period.

  1. To date, the Applicant 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 Kelly 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] PR746472

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR746471>

Details
AGLC
Veronica Kelly v Emma Bridle [2022] FWC 2666
Case
[2022] FWC 2666
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Veronica Kelly v Emma Bridle, the applicant, Ms Kelly, applied for an unfair dismissal remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Ms Kelly alleged that she was dismissed by her employer, Ms Bridle, on 11 September 2022, just 14 days after commencing employment on 28 August 2022. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the application was valid and if it had reasonable prospects of success.

The legal issues that the Commission had to decide included whether Ms Kelly had completed the minimum employment period required to be eligible for protection against unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission also needed to determine if Ms Kelly's application was frivolous or vexatious, and if it had a reasonable prospect of success. The Commission was empowered to dismiss the application if it found that the application did not comply with the Act, or if it was frivolous or vexatious, or if it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Commission found that Ms Kelly had not completed the required minimum employment period under the Fair Work Act 2009. Therefore, her application for unfair dismissal did not have reasonable prospects of success. The Commission dismissed the application under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission decided to issue an order 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.