Alejandro Alaminos v Broadhead (WA) Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1341

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy Alejandro Alaminos v Broadhead (WA) Pty Ltd (U2026/4653) DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT PERTH, 17 APRIL 2026 Application for relief from unfair dismissal – minimum employment period – dismissal under s 587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative - application has no reasonable prospects of success Issue and outcome [1] On 31 March 2026, Alejandro Alaminos (the Applicant) made an unfair dismissal application (the Application) to the Fair Work Commission under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). [2] For the following reasons I am satisfied that the Application has no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed. [3] In their Application, the Applicant indicated that they commenced employment with Broadhead (WA) Pty Ltd (the Respondent) on 13 March 2026 and that their dismissal took effect on 30 March 2026. On the information provided by the Applicant, they were employed for less than one month. [4] Section 382 of the Act provides that a person is only eligible to make an unfair dismissal application if they have completed a minimum employment period before their dismissal. Section 383 defines the minimum employment period to be either 6 months or one year, depending on whether the Respondent was a small business employer at the time of the dismissal. [5] Commission staff contacted the Applicant by email on 1 April 2026. The Applicant was advised that based upon the information in their Application, they had not completed the minimum employment period. The Applicant was also advised that their Application was very likely to be dismissed if no response was received by 8 April 2026. [6] On 7 April 2026, Commission staff again emailed the Applicant and advised them that they had not met the minimum employment period based on the dates included in their Application. The Applicant was reminded that their Application was very likely to be dismissed [2026] FWC 1341 DECISION AND ORDER -- 1 of 3 -- [2026] FWC 1341 2 if no response was received by 8 April 2026. A Commission staff member telephoned the Applicant on their nominated mobile phone number on 8 April 2026, which the Applicant did not answer. A voice message was left requesting the Applicant call the Registry. [7] The Applicant did not respond to the Commission’s correspondence on 1 April 2026 or 7 April 2026. To date, the Applicant has not returned the Commission staff member’s telephone call on 8 April 2026. Section 587 – general principles [8] Section 587 of the Act allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative in the early stages of the proceedings. Protracted proceedings can be avoided when there is no reasonable prospect of an outcome other than the dismissal of the application. [9] The power under s 587 should be used with caution, particularly if the matter involves complex questions of fact or law (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [11]-[16] (‘Bond’)). An application should not be dismissed under s 587 unless it is very clear that there are no reasonable prospects of success. As such the power under s 587 is not available if there are disputed facts that could affect the outcome of the proceedings. [10] Importantly, applicants must be given a fair opportunity to show that their application does in fact have some reasonable prospects of success. Reasonable prospects of success [11] The Commission cannot consider the fairness of the Applicant’s dismissal until it is established that they are protected from unfair dismissal. [12] The information provided by the Applicant in their Application strongly indicates that they are not protected from unfair dismissal because they do not appear to have served the minimum employment period. [13] The Applicant had the opportunity to provide information that could show that they had in fact completed the minimum employment period. However, the Applicant has not provided any information that is consistent with them having done so. [14] The Applicant has had the opportunity to put their case for consideration on all matters material to the decision to dismiss the application under s 587 of the Act (see Bond at [15]- [16]). Namely, that the Applicant has not met the minimum employment period. [15] I am satisfied that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success within the meaning of s 587(1)(c). It is therefore appropriate in the circumstances to dismiss the Application on the Commission’s own initiative using the facility available in s 587(3)(a). I make the following order: A. The Application under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Alejandro Alaminos on 31 March 2026 is dismissed. -- 2 of 3 -- [2026] FWC 1341 3 DEPUTY PRESIDENT Matter determined on the papers Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR798754> -- 3 of 3 --