Alexandra Gennings v Cordium Medical Staff Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 399

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394—Unfair dismissal Alexandra Gennings v Cordium Medical Staff Pty Ltd (U2024/13633) DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON SYDNEY, 11 FEBRUARY 2025 Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – minimum employment period – dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative - application has no reasonable prospects of success. [1] On 15 November 2024, Miss Alexandra Gennings made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). [2] For the following reasons I am satisfied that Miss Gennings’ application has no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed. [3] Miss Gennings indicated in their Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application that she commenced employment with Cordium Medical Staff Pty Ltd on 4 November 2024 and that her dismissal took effect on 22 November 2024. On the information provided by Miss Gennings, she was employed for 2 weeks and 4 days. [4] Sections 382 and 383 of the Act provide that a person is only eligible to make an unfair dismissal application if they have completed a minimum period of employment before their dismissal. Section 383 defines the minimum employment period to be either 6 months or 12 months, depending on whether the respondent was a small business employer at the time of the dismissal. On the information provided by Miss Gennings the period of employment was less than 6 months. [5] Commission staff tried to contact Miss Gennings on the following dates: • 19 November 2024 by telephone; • 20 November 2024 by email and SMS; and • 6 December 2024 by telephone. [6] Staff sought further information from Miss Gennings about whether she had served the minimum employment period. [2025] FWC 399 DECISION and ORDER -- 1 of 3 -- [2025] FWC 399 2 Section 587 – General Principles [7] Section 587 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. The relevant provisions of s.587 are: ““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 prospects of success. … (3) The FWC may dismiss an application: (a) on its own initiative; or (b) on application.” [8] 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. [9] Importantly, applicants must be given a fair opportunity to show that their application does in fact have some reasonable prospects of success. Does Gennings’ application have any reasonable prospects of success? [10] The Commission cannot consider the fairness of Miss Gennings’ dismissal until it is satisfied that she is eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim. [11] The information provided by Miss Gennings on her Form F2 application strongly indicates that she is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because she does not appear to have served the minimum employment period. [12] Miss Gennings had the opportunity to provide information that could show that they had in fact completed the minimum employment period. However Miss Gennings has not provided any information that is consistent with having served the minimum employment period. -- 2 of 3 -- [2025] FWC 399 3 [13] I am satisfied that Miss Gennings has had the opportunity to put her case for consideration on all matters material to the making of the decision to dismiss her application under s.587 (see Bond at [15]-[16]). [14] I am satisfied that Miss Gennings’ claim has no reasonable prospect of success within the meaning of s.587(1)(c), and that it is appropriate in the circumstances to dismiss her application on the Commission’s own initiative using the facility available in s.587(3)(a). [15] I have decided to dismiss Miss Gennings’ unfair dismissal application and make the following order: 1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Miss Gennings on 15 November 2024 is dismissed. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR784237> -- 3 of 3 --