For employ­ers with less than 15 employ­ees*, an employ­ee will only be able to make a claim for unfair dis­missal where they have a peri­od of con­tin­u­ous ser­vice of at least 12 months. For employ­ers with 15 employ­ees or more*, a claim for unfair dis­missal is only poten­tial­ly avail­able where an employ­ee has at least 6 months of con­tin­u­ous service**.

Whilst it is com­mend­able to give employ­ees every chance to suc­ceed in their role, the truth is that due to the unfair dis­missal rules, it is usu­al­ly safer to ter­mi­nate an employ­ee’s employ­ment dur­ing the first 6 months of their employ­ment (or 12 months for employ­ers with less than 15 employ­ees), rather than delay­ing tak­ing this action to a lat­er date.

Unless there is a spe­cif­ic pro­vi­sion in an employ­ment con­tract or in an award or enter­prise agree­ment which deals with the process for ter­mi­nat­ing employ­ment, an employ­ee who has not yet worked for the min­i­mum employ­ment peri­od can be ter­mi­nat­ed with­out being giv­en a rea­son for the ter­mi­na­tion. There is also no require­ment for the employ­ee to have been issued with writ­ten warn­ings, to have been sub­ject to a per­for­mance improve­ment plan or to have been required to attend for­mal or dis­ci­pli­nary meet­ings pri­or to the ter­mi­na­tion, etc.

It is only once an employ­ee has worked the min­i­mum employ­ment peri­od that warn­ings, per­for­mance improve­ment plans and for­mal meet­ings become rel­e­vant (as evi­dence of a dis­missal not being unfair).

For the above rea­sons, employ­ers often include in employ­ment con­tracts a pro­ba­tion­ary peri­od with­in which the employ­ee’s ini­tial per­for­mance is assessed. To be clear: a con­trac­tu­al pro­ba­tion­ary peri­od does not (and can­not) affect an employ­ee’s abil­i­ty (or inabil­i­ty) to make a claim for unfair dis­missal. How­ev­er, a pro­ba­tion­ary peri­od set to expire pri­or to the employ­ee hav­ing worked the min­i­mum employ­ment peri­od for unfair dis­missal is a use­ful tool to remind employ­ers to con­sid­er the ongo­ing suit­abil­i­ty of an employ­ee before an employ­ee has a right to bring an unfair dis­missal claim.

All this said, remem­ber that – regard­less of whether an employ­ee has a right to claim unfair dis­missal – there are oth­er legal reme­dies avail­able to employ­ee which do not depend on the length of ser­vice. Claims in gen­er­al pro­tec­tions and dis­crim­i­na­tion being the most obvi­ous exam­ples of claims that are avail­able from day one of employment.

Fol­low­ing a dis­ci­pli­nary process and hav­ing an audit trail of warn­ings etc may there­fore be advis­able in the con­text of poten­tial gen­er­al pro­tec­tions or dis­crim­i­na­tion claims. The accu­mu­la­tion of evi­dence of poor performance/​conduct and dis­ci­pli­nary steps tak­en, will gen­er­al­ly be of assis­tance to employ­ers in demon­strat­ing that the rea­son for dis­miss­ing an employ­ee was not for a rea­son pro­hib­it­ed under gen­er­al pro­tec­tions or dis­crim­i­na­tion legislation.

* The cal­cu­la­tion of the num­ber of employ­ees includes employ­ees of asso­ci­at­ed enti­ties”. It includes full time and part time employ­ees and cer­tain casu­al employees.

** There may be oth­er rea­sons why an employ­ee is not enti­tled to bring a claim for unfair dis­missal, such as that they earn more than the high income thresh­old” (unless they are cov­ered by a mod­ern award or enter­prise agreement). 

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

Match­ing Par­ent­ing Orders to Risk: Craft­ing orders to prop­er­ly address the dan­gers in a fam­i­ly law matter

The focus of any par­ent­ing mat­ter being dealt with in the Fed­er­al Cir­cuit and Fam­i­ly Court of Aus­tralia is what…

Amend­ments to NCC 2022 com­menc­ing on 1 May 2025

Back­groundThe Aus­tralian Build­ing Codes Board (ABCB), a joint ini­tia­tive of the Com­mon­wealth and state and ter­ri­to­ry gov­ern­ments togeth­er with the build­ing…

Choose Your Own Respon­dent in Gen­er­al Pro­tec­tions Dis­missal Disputes

Usu­al­ly when one par­ty is tak­ing legal pro­ceed­ings against anoth­er the respon­dent enti­ty needs to be care­ful­ly iden­ti­fied. It can…

In the News

Press Release | New Part­ner Appoint­ment — Mark Glynn

With over two decades in the indus­try, Mark is a recog­nised front-end con­struc­tion lawyer spe­cial­ist with­in the build­ing and con­struc­tion indus­try. Mark…

Press Release | New Asso­ciate Appoint­ment — Hugo Mahony

“As we con­tin­ue to expand in line with our strate­gic vision, Hugo’s deep knowl­edge and expe­ri­ence in Com­mer­cial, Cor­po­rate, IP…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, Police and Safe­Work are inves­ti­gat­ing MAFS, but the show keeps win­ning the rat­ings race”, pub­lished on ABC News on 6 April 2025

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“Police and Safe­Work are inves­ti­gat­ing MAFS, but the show keeps win­ning the rat­ings…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information