1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy Mr Aury Tomasoni v Woolworths Group Limited (U2026/7814) DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'NEILL ADELAIDE, 4 JUNE 2026 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 29 April 2026, Mr Aury Tomasoni made an unfair dismissal application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). For the following reasons, I am satisfied that Mr Tomasoni’s application has no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed. [2] Mr Tomasoni stated in his application that he commenced employment with Woolworths Group Limited on 27 October 2025 and that his dismissal took effect on 7 April 2025. [3] 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 Mr Tomasoni, his period of employment was less than 6 months. [4] Commission staff provided Mr Tomasoni with information regarding the minimum employment period via email and telephone on 7 May 2026 and 12 May 2026. My Chambers also emailed Mr Tomasoni on 21 May 2026 advising that the minimum employment period has not been met and if he does not contact the Commission by 28 May 2026, his application may be dismissed under s.587(1)(c). [5] Mr Tomasoni has not responded to the Commission’s multiple attempts to contact him. Section 587 – General Principles [6] 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. [2026] FWC 1962 DECISION [2026] FWC 1962 2 [7] The power under s.587 should be used with caution, particularly if the matter involves complex questions of fact or law.1 An application should not be dismissed unless it is very clear that there are no reasonable prospects of success and the power is not available if there are disputed facts that could affect the outcome of the proceedings. [8] Importantly, applicants must be given a fair opportunity to show that their application does in fact have some reasonable prospects of success. Does Mr Tomasoni’s application have any reasonable prospects of success? [9] The Commission cannot consider the fairness of Mr Tomasoni’s dismissal until it is clear that he is eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim. [10] The information provided by Mr Tomasoni indicates that he is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because he was employed for less than six months. [11] I am satisfied that Mr Tomasoni’s claim has no reasonable prospect of success and that it is appropriate to dismiss his application. I order: 1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Aury Tomasoni on 29 April 2026 (U2026/7814) is dismissed. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR810487> 1 See generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [11]-[16].