| [2023] FWC 3002 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Zoey Sheree Goon
v
Dandenong-Cranbourne RSL Sub Branch Inc.
(U2023/9930)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 16 NOVEMBER 2023 |
Application for relief from unfair dismissal – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.
On 12 October 2023, Ms Zoey Sheree Goon (Applicant) 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 Goon advised in her Form F2 – Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) that she commenced employment with Dandenong-Cranbourne RSL Sub Branch Inc (Respondent) on 28 March 2023 and that her dismissal took effect on 21 September 2023.
On 26 September 2023, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Goon on her nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left advising Ms Goon that it appeared she had not served the minimum employment period and that she may not be eligible to make an application for an unfair dismissal remedy. It was requested that Ms Goon contact the Commission.
Later that day the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Goon’s nominated email address, advising Ms Goon that, on the basis of the information provided in the Form F2, she had not served the minimum employment period. The correspondence directed Ms Goon 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 her application may be dismissed without further notice. An SMS notification was also sent to Ms Goon’s nominated telephone number requesting that she contact the Commission. As the required documentation was not received, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Goon on 9 November 2023, on her nominated telephone number. However, Ms Goon could not be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting an urgent call back. To date Ms Goon 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.
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 the material before the Commission indicates Ms Goon has not completed the required minimum employment period under the FW Act, I am satisfied the 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.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
<PR768336>
[1] PR768337.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
- AGLC
- Zoey Sheree Goon v Dandenong-Cranbourne RSL Sub Branch Inc [2023] FWC 3002
- Case
- [2023] FWC 3002
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue in this case was whether Ms Goon had served the minimum employment period, which is six months if the employer is not a small business employer, as per section 383(a) of the FW Act. The FWC attempted to contact Ms Goon on multiple occasions, but she failed to respond or provide any documentation to support her claim that she had served the required period. The FWC was also concerned that the application might be frivolous or vexatious under section 587(1)(b) of the FW Act.
After reviewing the evidence, the FWC Deputy President determined that Ms Goon had not completed the minimum employment period and, therefore, was not protected from unfair dismissal under the FW Act. The Deputy President found that the application had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed it under section 587(1)(c) of the FW Act. Consequently, an order dismissing the application was issued.
This case highlights the importance of serving the minimum employment period to be protected from unfair dismissal and the consequences of failing to respond to the FWC’s inquiries. It also underscores the FWC’s discretion to dismiss applications that have no reasonable prospect of success or are frivolous or vexatious.
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.