Carrisa Paroz v Should Be Digging Pty Ltd
Deputy President Easton
Not yet cited by other cases
Applicant: Carrisa Paroz
Respondent: Should Be Digging Pty Ltd
This case hasn't been analysed yet.
Sign in to analyse
Generate ratio, outcome, key facts, concept tags and cited-case edges. Takes ~15–30 seconds.
Authority signal
Not yet cited by other cases
Signal-weighted score: 0.0
Derived from how later decisions have treated this case. Dark green = leading authority,
green = positively treated, grey = neutral or sparse data,
amber = caution, red = treated negatively.
Concept tags · 4
Cases cited in this decision · 1
Cited
[2024] FWC 1302
— Alan Geoffrey Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge
"…ble prospect of an outcome other than the dismissal of the application. [1] The power under s.587 should be used with caution, particularly if the matter involves complex questions of fact or law (see generally Bond...…"
Archived text (682 words)
1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394—Unfair dismissal Carrisa Paroz v Should Be Digging Pty Ltd (U2026/3281) DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON SYDNEY, 2 JULY 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 17 February 2026, Ms Carrisa Paroz 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 Ms Paroz’s application has no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed. [3] In her Form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application Ms Paroz indicated that she commenced employment with Should Be Digging Pty Ltd on 19 March 2025. The Respondent referred to the same date on its Form F3 response and that Ms Paroz’s dismissal took effect on 2 February 2026. On the information provided by Ms Paroz, she was employed for approximately 10 months. There is no dispute that the Respondent had less than 15 employees at the time the Applicant was dismissed. [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 Ms Paroz the period of employment was less than 12 months. [5] Commission staff attempted to contact Ms Paroz by SMS and email regarding the Minimum Employment Period. Ms Paroz telephoned the Commission on 25 March 2026 to enquire about her matter, but has not responded to staff inquiries since. [2026] FWC 2501 DECISION AND ORDER [2026] FWC 2501 2 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. [1] 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. [2] Importantly, applicants must be given a fair opportunity to show that their application does in fact have some reasonable prospects of success. Does Ms Paroz’s application have any reasonable prospects of success? [3] The Commission cannot consider the fairness of Ms Paroz’s dismissal until it is clear that she is eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim. [4] The information provided by Ms Paroz on her Form F2 application indicates that she is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because she does not appear to have served the minimum employment period. [5] Ms Paroz had the opportunity to provide information that could show that she had in fact completed the minimum employment period. However Ms Paroz has not provided any information that is consistent with her having done so. Ms Paroz has also had the opportunity to put her case for consideration on all matters material to the decision to dismiss the application under s.587 (see Bond at [15]-[16]). [6] I am satisfied that Ms Paroz’s 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). I make the following order: A. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Carrisa Paroz on 17 February 2026 is dismissed. DEPUTY PRESIDENT [2026] FWC 2501 3 Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR811712>