the Applicant v Masterton Homes Pty Limited
At a glance
- 1
What happened
the Applicant lodged an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission on May 21, 2026. She stated she was dismissed from Masterton Homes Pty Limited on May 14, 2026, after commencing employment on November 17, 2025. This meant her minimum employment period of six months had not been met. The Commission notified the Applicant of this issue and provided opportunities for her to respond or provide evidence demonstrating she had completed the required time. She acknowledged her employment was less than six months in a later response.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission Deputy President dismissed the Applicant’s unfair dismissal application. The Commission found that the Applicant did not meet the minimum employment period requirement to be eligible for an unfair dismissal claim. Section 587 of the Fair Work Act allows the Commission to dismiss applications with no reasonable prospects of success, and this power was used here after the Applicant failed to provide evidence demonstrating she had completed the required six-month employment period. The Deputy President noted applicants must have a fair opportunity to show their application has some prospect of success.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure they clearly communicate dismissal procedures and timelines to employees. This case highlights the importance of verifying an employee's eligibility for unfair dismissal claims, particularly regarding minimum employment periods. Employers should maintain accurate records of start dates and termination dates to facilitate this verification process.
What it means for employees
Employees must meet certain requirements before they can make an unfair dismissal claim, including completing a minimum employment period (usually six months or one year depending on employer size). The Fair Work Commission will assess eligibility early in the process. Employees should respond promptly and fully to any requests for information from the Commission.
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.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want 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.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.