{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"OHS Daily News","provider_url":"https:\/\/ohsdaily.com.au\/core","title":"TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT \u2013 minimum employment period \u2013 continuity of employment \u2013 ss.383, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 \u2013 applicant lodged application for unfair dismissal remedy \u2013 respondent raised a jurisdictional objection alleging applicant did not complete the minimum employment period \u2013 submitted employment took place in two distinct periods with a cessation in between \u2013 also submitted an 'end of probation' meeting was held during which the applicant's employment was terminated and he was placed on a fixed term contract with an employment break of one day \u2013 applicant submitted he was not aware he had been terminated and had been continuously paid throughout the 10 months of his employment \u2013 Commission satisfied applicant was unaware the respondent was attempting to terminate his employment \u2013 whilst there was a change in the contract of employment, there was no cessation of the employment relationship \u2013 as such applicant had been employed for more than six months at the time of his dismissal \u2013 jurisdictional objection dismissed \u2013 matter to be listed for further programming. Pope v Water Dynamics P\/L<\/strong>","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT \u2013 minimum employment period \u2013 continuity of employment \u2013 ss.383, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 \u2013 applicant lodged application for unfair dismissal remedy \u2013 respondent raised a jurisdictional objection alleging applicant did not complete the minimum employment period \u2013 submitted employment took place in two distinct periods with a cessation in between \u2013 also submitted an ‘end of probation’ meeting was held during which the applicant’s employment was terminated and he was placed on a fixed term contract with an employment break of one day \u2013 applicant submitted he was not aware he had been terminated and had been continuously paid throughout the 10 months of his employment \u2013 Commission satisfied applicant was unaware the respondent was attempting to terminate his employment \u2013 whilst there was a change in the contract of employment, there was no cessation of the employment relationship \u2013 as such applicant had been employed for more than six months at the time of his dismissal \u2013 jurisdictional objection dismissed \u2013 matter to be listed for further programming. Pope v Water Dynamics P\/L<\/strong><\/a><\/blockquote>\n