TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – minimum employment period – transfer of business – ss.383, 384, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for an unfair dismissal remedy – respondent objected on the basis that the applicant was not employed for the minimum employment period – applicant employed on 7 January 2014 on a casual basis as a registered nurse at the medical practice by the previous owner – medical practice sold to respondent on 6 June 2016 – before settlement date respondent advised previous owner that employees working at the medical practice would not be recognised as transferring employees and requested that the previous owner give notice to terminate the employment of each employee – previous owner advised employees ‘We understand Dr Ismail will be providing you with an independent offer of employment commencing 6th of June 2016’ – on 6 June 2016 the applicant commenced employment with the respondent on a casual basis as a registered nurse – applicant was not provided with a written offer of employment by the respondent, nor did it inform her in writing, whether before or after the commencement of her employment with the respondent, that her period of service with the previous owner would not be recognised – no dispute that the respondent and the previous owner were not associated entities – whether there has been a transfer of business within the meaning of s.311(1) of the FW Act is whether there is a connection between the previous owner and the respondent – Commission held that in accordance with the contract for sale, the respondent became the owner, and had the beneficial use, of assets that the previous owner owned, and had beneficial use of, prior to the sale of the medical practice – satisfied that those assets related to, and were used in connection with, the work the applicant has at all material times performed in the medical practice – found that because there was a connection between the previous owner and the respondent as described in s.311(3) and the other requirements of s.311(1) have been satisfied, there was a transfer of business from the previous owner to the respondent within the meaning of s.311 and the applicant was a transferring employee in relation to that transfer of business – accordingly the applicant’s period of service with the previous owner counts as service with the respondent – Commission satisfied that the applicant’s employment as a casual employee at the medical practice was on a regular and systematic basis and she had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment – held that the applicant had completed a period of employment with the respondent of at least the minimum employment period at time of her alleged dismissal – respondent’s jurisdictional objection rejected – matter to be listed for further directions. Allan v Celesty P/L atf Celesty Family Trust t/a Toukley Family Doctor
