TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – minimum employment period – casual – ss.383, 384, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for an unfair dismissal remedy – applicant employed as a casual personal care assistant – respondent raised jurisdictional objection that applicant had not met the minimum employment period as she was a casual and not employed to work on a regular and systematic basis – Commission adopted the approach in Ponce that there must be sufficient evidence to establish a continuing relationship between the employer and the employee – employment must be on a regular and systematic basis which does not mean the hours or days of work must be regular and systematic – respondent submitted a table of shifts worked by the applicant – submitted the applicant had no regular shifts and the total hours worked each week significantly varied throughout the period of employment – applicant submitted she was regularly offered and accepted work – evidence provided by applicant led Commission to conclude the roster was more a statement of intention of what would occur rather than a fixed commitment by the employer to provide work – Commission concluded whilst applicant may have been offered work regularly, there was no real system to her employment and she did not expect to be offered work each week – found applicant was not employed on a regular and systematic basis – found applicant had not completed minimum employment period – jurisdictional objection upheld – application for unfair dismissal remedy dismissed. Tsakiridou v The Community of Cypriots of The Northern Suburbs of Melbourne Inc t/a Grace of Mary
