Adam Brooks v Mechanical Project Services Pty. Ltd. [2026] FWC 2405

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394—Unfair dismissal Adam Brooks v Mechanical Project Services Pty. Ltd. (U2026/2044) DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT PERTH, 29 JUNE 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 11 February 2026, Adam Brooks (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 Mechanical Project Services Pty. Ltd on 8 September 2025 and that they were notified of their dismissal on 9 February 2026. On the information provided by the Applicant, they were employed for approximately five months. [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 six months or one year, depending on whether the Respondent was a small business employer at the time of the dismissal. On the information provided by the Applicant, the minimum employment period was six months. [5] Commission staff contacted the Applicant by email on 13 February 2026. The Applicant was informed that based upon the information in their Application, they had not completed the minimum employment period. The Applicant was also placed on notice that their Application was very likely to be dismissed if no response was received by 20 February 2026. The Applicant did not respond to the Commission’s correspondence. [2026] FWC 2405 DECISION AND ORDER -- 1 of 3 -- [2026] FWC 2405 2 [6] My Chambers contacted the Applicant by email on 8 June 2026. The Applicant was directed to provide their response with respect to the minimum employment period or to provide any submissions regarding the potential dismissal of the Application within a set period. The Applicant was put on notice that, absent receipt of their response within that timeframe, the Application was very likely to be dismissed without further notice. An SMS was sent to the Applicant’s nominated telephone on 9 June 2026 alerting the Applicant to the fact that the Application required attention. [7] The Applicant provided a response to the email on 10 June 2026. The Applicant acknowledged that they did not meet the minimum employment period. However, they did not accept that their Application should be dismissed and provided further information regarding the merits of their Application. [8] My Chambers sent a further email to the Applicant on 10 June 2026 in response to inform the Applicant that the Commission did not have the ability to waive or alter the minimum employment period; therefore, the Commission is unable to consider the merits of the dismissal unless it is satisfied that the minimum employment period has been met. The Applicant was directed to provide any further submissions with respect to the minimum employment period within a set period. The Applicant was again put on notice that, absent receipt of their response within that timeframe, the Application would be dismissed without further notice. [9] The Applicant provided a response to the email on 11 June 2026. The Applicant provided further information regarding the merits of their Application. The Applicant acknowledged the requirements of the minimum employment provisions in the Act; however they asserted that they regularly worked in excess of their contracted hours and enquired as to whether this had any bearing of the assessment of their period of service. [10] My Chambers sent an email to the Applicant on 11 June 2026 in response. The Applicant was informed that their response did not provide a reasonable basis for showing that they completed the minimum employment period. The Applicant was provided with resources from the Commission's website outlining how the minimum employment period is calculated. The Applicant was informed that they could discontinue the Application or provide any further information to support any assertion that they had completed the minimum employment period within the set period referred to in paragraph [6] of this decision. The Applicant was again put on notice that, absent receipt of their response within that timeframe, the Application would be dismissed without further notice. To date, the Commission has received no further response. Section 587 – general principles [11] 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. [12] 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 [2024] FWC 1302 at [11]-[16] (‘Bond’)). An application should not be dismissed under s 587 unless it is very clear -- 2 of 3 -- [2026] FWC 2405 3 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. [13] 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 [14] The Commission cannot consider the fairness of the Applicant’s dismissal until it is established that they are protected from unfair dismissal. [15] 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. [16] 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. [17] 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. [18] I am satisfied that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success within the meaning of s 587(1)(c) of the Act. 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 Adam Brooks on 11 February 2026 is dismissed. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Matter determined on the papers Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR811463> -- 3 of 3 --