TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – minimum employment period – ss.383, 384, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicant applied for unfair dismissal remedies in respect of her dismissal by the respondent – respondent raised the jurisdictional objection that the applicant had not met the minimum employment period of six months on the basis that her employment was casual and not systematic – in this regard, the respondent argued that the applicant was one of 30 casual employees in a typist pool who performed ‘overflow’ work from home, and the applicant’s work was self-allocated with no minimum work requirement – significantly the applicant’s contract purported to be a contract for casual employment – the Commission observed that it is the engagement, not the hours, that must be regular and systematic [Yaraka] – held that the absence of any contractual requirement for the applicant to work set hours did not preclude the finding that her engagement was regular and systematic – found that the applicant’s engagement was long-standing and that the respondent relied on the applicant’s service in an ongoing manner – held that the applicant’s employment was regular and systematic – the jurisdictional objection was dismissed. Morrow v MedHealth
