(a) Submissions in relation to the jurisdiction of Fair Work Commission to deal with the application, including:

(i) the Respondent's jurisdictional objection that the Applicant did not complete the minimum employment period (s.383 Fair Work Act 2009)

(ii) the Respondent's jurisdictional objection that the Applicant was not dismissed within the meaning of s.386(1)(a)-(b) Fair Work Act 2009;

(iii) Witness Statements for each of the witnesses the Respondent intends to call at the hearing in support of the jurisdictional objection.

(b) Any other documents the Applicant intends to rely on as evidence.

1. The Respondent is required to file the following material in the Fair Work Commission, and serve a copy on the other party, by no later than 4:00PM (AEDT) Wednesday, 28 January 2026:

(a) Submissions in relation to the jurisdiction of Fair Work Commission to deal with the application, including:

(i) the Respondent's jurisdictional objection that the Applicant did not complete the minimum employment period (s.383 Fair Work Act 2009)

(ii) the Respondent's jurisdictional objection that the Applicant was not dismissed within the meaning of s.386(1)(a)-(b) Fair Work Act 2009;

(iii) Witness Statements for each of the witnesses the Respondent intends to call at the hearing in support of the jurisdictional objection.

(b) Any other documents the Respondent intends to rely on as evidence.

If there are any contested facts in relation to these issues the matter will be relisted for conference or hearing on a date to be fixed. If there are no facts in issue the Deputy President may determine the matter on the basis of the material received from the parties.

[4] The applicant did not file material in response to these directions. An email sent by Chambers on 3 February 2026 directed the applicant to file these outstanding materials by 4 February 2026. Further material was filed by the parties and the matter was relisted for a case management conference on 10 February 2026. Neither party attended this conference.

[5] Further written directions were issued to the parties on 10 February 2026. The directions included the following:

The Deputy President has considered the material filed by the parties so far and notes the following:

1. A small business is defined as a business with fewer than 15 employees (s.23).
2. The applicant has indicated in the application that the size of the respondent's business at the time of dismissal is between 1-14 employees.
3. A person is protected from unfair dismissal (and able to obtain a remedy for unfair dismissal s.390(1)(a)) only where they have completed the minimum employment period with their employer (s.382(a)).
4. The minimum employment period for an employee employed by a small business is 1 year (s.383(b)).
5. On the face of the material, it is not in issue that the applicant was employed by the respondent for a period of less than 1 year.

It appears likely on the available material that the application will not succeed on the basis that the applicant has not met the minimum employment period. On that basis the Deputy President is proposing to dismiss the application under s.587(1)(c) i.e. that the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

If either party has any further evidence or submissions to make in relation to this issue the Deputy President proposes to allow a final opportunity to do so. It is now directed that any such material is to be provided to Chambers and copied to the other side by no later than 4:00pm Thursday, 12 February 2026. In the absence of any further response the matter will be determined on the papers without further notice.

[6] No further materials were received from either party after these directions were issued.

[7] Section 397 of the Act requires the Commission to conduct a conference or hold a hearing in relation to an application under Part 3-2 if and to the extent that, the matter involves facts the existence of which is in dispute. The material filed by the applicant in response to the directions of 3 February 2026 included an unsworn statement which included an assertion that the applicant commenced employment with the respondent on 12 April 2025. On 17 February 2026, I listed the matter for hearing on 23 February 2026 to deal with the minimum employment period objection. The applicant did not appear at the hearing.

• [8] Under the Act, a small business is defined as a business with fewer than 15 employees.[2] At the hearing on 23 February 2026 Mr. Price for the respondent gave sworn evidence that at and around the time that the applicant's employment came to an end the respondent employed more than 15 employees.

• [9] A person is protected from dismissal, and only able to obtain a remedy for unfair dismissal, when they have completed the minimum employment period with their employer.[3] The minimum employment period for an employee of an employer that is not a small business is 6 months. [4]

[10] The applicant's application form states that he commenced employment with the respondent company on 3 April 2025. The applicant's statement states that he commenced work with the respondent on 12 April 2025. The respondent's F3 response form, an employee letter of engagement signed by the applicant and the applicant's training records shows the applicant commencing employment with the respondent company on 6 May 2025. A tax file number declaration form and choice of superannuation form both dated 5 May 2025 and signed by the applicant, were also provided. Mr. Price gave sworn evidence that the applicant commenced employment with the respondent on 6 May 2025. An email from the applicant to the respondent with the subject line "Resignation" and stating "this is my resignation email" dated 13 October 2025 is in evidence. The applicant's unfair dismissal application was filed on 19 October 2025. I accept the evidence that employment commenced on 6 May 2025 and came to an end at the latest, on 13 October 2025. The applicant's period of employment with the respondent was therefore less than 6 months.

[11] The applicant did not meet the minimum employment period, and consequently the applicant was not protected from unfair dismissal and no remedy would be available to him under Part 3-2 of the Act. I therefore propose to dismiss the application under s.587(1)(c) on the basis that the application has no reasonable prospects of success. It is unnecessary to deal with the second objection.

[3] See Sections 390(1)(a) and Section 382(a).

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer