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

Assess­ing Scope 3 Emis­sions: An analy­sis of the impli­ca­tions of Den­man Aberdeen Muswell­brook Scone Healthy Envi­ron­ment Group Inc v MACH Ener­gy Aus­tralia Pty Ltd [2025] NSW­CA 163 (the Mount Pleas­ant decision)

Intro­duc­tionOn July 24, 2025, the New South Wales Court of Appeal (NSW­CA) deliv­ered a land­mark rul­ing in Den­man Aberdeen Muswell­brook Scone…

Work­place Rela­tion­ships: The Legal Posi­tion (Cold­play Con­cert Edition)

The recent sto­ry of col­leagues (a Chief Exec­u­tive Offi­cer and Chief Peo­ple Offi­cer (CPO)) whose appar­ent rela­tion­ship was cap­tured on…

Dis­missal for Dissent?

The recent unfair dis­missal deci­sion of the Fair Work Com­mis­sion, Shaun Turn­er v Dare­bin City Coun­cil [2025] FWC 1763, in which Deputy…

In the News

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, Employ­ee award­ed $305k in record sex­u­al harass­ment pay­out”, pub­lished in HRM Online on 12 August 2025

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“Employ­ee award­ed $305k in record sex­u­al harass­ment pay­out”, pub­lished in HRM Online on…

Michael Byrnes appeared on Mon­ey News with Evan Lucas on 2GB on 4 August 2025 to dis­cuss the pro­posed Vic­to­ri­an state gov­ern­ment work from home laws

Michael Byrnes appeared on Mon­ey News with Evan Lucas on 2GB on 4 August 2025 to dis­cuss the pro­posed Vic­to­ri­an state gov­ern­ment…

Julie Briscoe attend­ed an event last night host­ed by NSW Gov­er­nor Mar­garet Bea­z­ley, cel­e­brat­ing Tour de Cure’s sup­port for world-class can­cer research breakthroughs.

Her Excel­len­cy the Hon­ourable Mar­garet Bea­z­ley AC KC, Gov­er­nor of New South Wales, and patron of Tour de Cure, host­ed…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information