Aytash Shearer Kocak v Great Southern Plumbing and Maintenance Pty Ltd

Case [2025] FWC 1840


[2025] FWC 1840 [Note: a correction has been issued to this document]

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Aytash Shearer Kocak
v

Great Southern Plumbing and Maintenance Pty Ltd

(U2025/4880)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

CANBERRA, 27 JUNE 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application dismissed.

  1. On 18 April 2025 Mr Aytash Shearer Kocak (Applicant) made an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging that he had been unfairly dismissed from his employment with Great Southern Plumbing and Maintenance Pty Ltd.

  1. The matter was listed for conciliation on 18 June 2025. However, the conciliation did not proceed as the Applicant failed to attend. Attempts to contact the Applicant by telephone were unsuccessful, and he did not communicate with the Commission about his absence.

  2. Later that same day, the Commission issued correspondence to the Applicant regarding his failure to attend the scheduled conference. The Applicant was directed to provide an explanation for his non-attendance. No response was received.

  1. On 23 June 2025 further correspondence was sent to the Applicant affording him a final opportunity to respond. The Applicant was required to reply by 25 March 2025 and was advised that, in the absence of a response, his application may be dismissed.

  1. As at the date of this decision, no correspondence has been received from the Applicant.

  1. Section 587 of the Act provides the Commission with a broad discretion to dismiss an application. It reads:

587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or
(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or
(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.

  1. I am satisfied, on the basis of the Applicant’s failure to attend the Commission proceeding and his repeated failure to respond to Commission correspondence, that he has not demonstrated any intention to pursue his unfair dismissal application. Accordingly, I have determined to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587 of the Act.

  1. An order dismissing the application will be issued with this decision.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR788662>

Details
AGLC
Aytash Shearer Kocak v Great Southern Plumbing and Maintenance Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 1840
Case
[2025] FWC 1840
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aytash Shearer Kocak filed an application under the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging he was unfairly dismissed by Great Southern Plumbing and Maintenance Pty Ltd. The matter was scheduled for conciliation on 18 June 2025, but the Applicant did not attend. Despite attempts to contact him by telephone and correspondence, the Applicant did not provide an explanation for his absence nor did he respond to the Commission's requests for information. The Commission gave him a final opportunity to respond, but as of the date of the decision, no communication had been received from him.

The central legal issue was whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution. This was based on the Applicant's failure to attend the scheduled conciliation conference and his subsequent lack of response to correspondence from the Commission. The relevant statutory provision, s.587 of the Act, empowers the Commission to dismiss an application if it lacks reasonable prospects of success, among other reasons. Given the Applicant's repeated failure to engage with the proceedings, it was determined that the application had no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed.

In reaching the decision to dismiss the application, Deputy President Dean noted that the Applicant had not demonstrated any intention to pursue his unfair dismissal claim. The dismissal was made pursuant to s.587 of the Act, which allows for the dismissal of applications that are not prosecuted diligently. The Deputy President concluded that the Applicant's lack of engagement with the proceedings justified the dismissal of the application. An order dismissing the application was made with this decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.