| [2024] FWC 3369 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Zhuofei Yang
v
Endeavour Education and Migration Pty Ltd
(U2024/11969)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN | MELBOURNE, 4 DECEMBER 2024 |
Unfair dismissal application – jurisdictional objection – application dismissed
Earlier today I dismissed an application made by Zhuofei Yang under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, for reasons given on transcript. In short, while I accepted Ms Yang’s contention that on 11 September 2024 she was dismissed by the respondent when she was told that she would not get any more shifts for the next few months, I concluded that she had not served the minimum employment period (s 383), which in this case was one year. In this regard, the respondent stated, and Ms Yang did not dispute, that it employed only 4 persons. There are no associated entities. I concluded that at the relevant time the respondent was a small business employer as defined in s 23 of the Act. In order to bring an unfair dismissal claim against a small business employer, a person must have served a minimum employment period of one year. There are no exceptions to this rule. Ms Yang’s period of service with the respondent, which according to her application commenced on 20 February 2024, was less than seven months. As she had not served the minimum employment period of one year, she was not a person protected from unfair dismissal (s 382). Her application was therefore dismissed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Hearing details:
2024
Melbourne
4 December
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR782001>
- AGLC
- Zhuofei Yang v Endeavour Education and Migration Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 3369
- Case
- [2024] FWC 3369
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Deputy President, Colman, found that Ms Yang's employment with Endeavour Education and Migration Pty Ltd began on 20 February 2024, making her tenure less than seven months. Given the company employed only four people and had no associated entities, it qualified as a small business employer. The Act mandates that an employee must serve a minimum of one year to be protected from unfair dismissal when employed by such a small business. Ms Yang's service period did not meet this requirement, leading the Deputy President to conclude that she was not protected from unfair dismissal.
Consequently, the Deputy President dismissed Ms Yang's application on the basis that she had not fulfilled the minimum employment period necessary to claim unfair dismissal against a small business employer. The decision was made on the basis that there were no exceptions to the one-year employment requirement for small businesses, and as such, Ms Yang did not meet the statutory criteria for protection under the 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.