the Applicant v Vivid Property Services Pty Limited
Citation: [2026] FWC 2355
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant lodged an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission on November 14, 2025, following his dismissal from Vivid Property Services Pty Limited on October 27, 2025. He stated he worked for approximately one and a half months. The Commission investigated whether the Applicant met the minimum employment period requirement to be eligible for an unfair dismissal claim. The Commission attempted to contact him multiple times via phone and email, requesting information about his employment start date but received no response.
What was decided
the Fair Work Commission Deputy President dismissed the Applicant’s unfair dismissal application without a hearing. The decision was made under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act because the application had “no reasonable prospects of success”. This is due to the Applicant not completing the required minimum employment period of six months, and failing to respond to requests from the Commission regarding this issue. The Commission noted that applicants must be given a fair opportunity to show their case but the Applicant did not provide any information to dispute this.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure accurate records are kept regarding employee start dates and employment periods. This is crucial for determining eligibility for unfair dismissal claims. Clear communication with employees about minimum employment requirements can also help avoid disputes.
What it means for employees
Employees need to be aware of the minimum employment period required before they can make an unfair dismissal claim, which is generally six months for small businesses. It’s important to respond promptly to any requests from the Fair Work Commission regarding your application or eligibility.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc2355.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →