DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s 394—Unfair dismissal

Adam Waters
v
Metrix Automation Australia T/A Metrix Automation
(U2020/1125)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS

SYDNEY, 1 JUNE 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – applicant failed to attend telephone conference – attempts made to contact applicant to no avail – submissions not filed in accordance with directions – application dismissed for want of prosecution.

[1] Mr Adam Waters (the ‘applicant’), filed an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission pursuant to s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’), after his employment with the respondent, Metrix Automation, was terminated on 16 January 2020.

[2] In accordance with my usual practice, I listed the matter for telephone conference on 4 May 2020. Neither the applicant nor the respondent were able to be reached at this time, having cause for my Associate to send the following email to the parties:

‘Dear Mr Waters and Mr Waters,

I refer to the above matter, and refer to your non-attendance at today’s teleconference listed at 10am, and the failure of the respondent to provide Chambers with a Form F3. The Commission had set this matter down during a spike in Commission matters being lodged, and costs by the Commission were wasted due to your non-attendance.

His Honour requires an explanation by way of evidence as to your non-attendance and for the respondent, a failure to provide a Form F3, by close of business Wednesday 6 May 2020. If you do not provide an explanation in writing, and the respondent to lodge its Form F3 by this time, the matter may be closed for a failure of want of prosecution.

The applicant is reminded that its submissions are due to be filed by 4pm 25 May 2020 (see the attached directions).

Parties are also reminded that all correspondence with Chambers must copy in the other side.

Regards,

Daniel McNamara

Associate to the Hon. Deputy President P Sams AM’

[3] Despite attempts to have either party provide some written advice about this matter, or file a Notice of Discontinuance, they have not done so, nor has either party filed their submissions in accordance with the directions issued on 27 April 2020. Therefore, pursuant to s 587 of the Act, the application is dismissed for want of prosecution. I so order.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Adam Waters, sought a remedy for an unfair dismissal against Metrix Automation Australia, trading as Metrix Automation. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission. Mr Waters alleged that his dismissal was unjust, but his application faced challenges when he failed to attend a scheduled telephone conference and did not respond to attempts to contact him. Additionally, his submissions were not lodged in line with the directions given by the Commission.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the application should proceed given Mr Waters' non-attendance at the conference and his failure to adhere to procedural requirements. The Commission considered whether it was appropriate to dismiss the application due to the applicant's non-compliance with procedural directions. It was necessary to weigh the procedural compliance against the merits of the application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

The Commission found that Mr Waters' failure to attend the telephone conference and his non-compliance with procedural directions constituted sufficient grounds for dismissing the application. Despite the merits of the unfair dismissal claim, the procedural shortcomings warranted the application's dismissal. The Commission concluded that the application was not prosecuted in accordance with the rules and directions, leading to the dismissal of the proceedings.

No orders were made as the application was dismissed for want of prosecution. The Commission did not proceed to consider the merits of Mr Waters' unfair dismissal claim due to the procedural deficiencies.

Adam Waters v Metrix Automation Australia T/A Metrix Automation

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established