Ben Dancaster v Hyundai Rotem Company

Case [2024] FWC 71


[2024] FWC 71

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Ben Dancaster
v

Hyundai Rotem Company

(U2023/10556)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS

NEWCASTLE, 11 JANUARY 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - application dismissed

  1. This decision relates to an unfair dismissal application by Mr Ben Dancaster pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) against his former employer, Hyundai Rotem Company.

  1. The matter was listed for a directions hearing, by telephone, on 19 December 2023. Mr Dancaster did not appear at the directions hearing.

  1. At the commencement of the directions hearing, my Associate attempted to telephone to Mr Dancaster about the matter and as the call was not answered, a voicemail message requesting a return call was left. A further telephone call was made shortly thereafter, again, the call was not answered. Mr Dancaster has not responded to these messages.

  1. On 19 December 2023, the following email was sent from my Chambers to Mr Dancaster:

    “Dear Mr Dancaster

I refer to the unfair dismissal application you have lodged in the Fair Work Commission against your former employer, Hyundai Rotem Company.

You did not attend the conciliation conference in your unfair dismissal application. Nor did you attend, by telephone, the directions hearing in this matter before Deputy President Saunders at 4:45pm today.

Deputy President Saunders is considering whether your unfair dismissal application should be dismissed under s 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) on the basis that you are not prosecuting your unfair dismissal claim.

If you wish to proceed with your unfair dismissal application, you must make contact with us by 4pm on Friday, 22 December 2023. If we do not hear from you by that time, your unfair dismissal application may be dismissed without further notice to you. You may contact us by email (chambers.saunders.dp@fwc.gov.au) or by telephone 02 9308 1827.

Alternatively, if you do not wish to proceed with your unfair dismissal application you can inform us, by reply email, that you wish to discontinue your application.

Yours sincerely”

  1. No response from Mr Dancaster was received by my Chambers.  

  1. On 28 December 2023, the following email was sent from my Chambers to Mr Dancaster:

    “Dear Mr Dancaster

    We note that we did not receive a response to our below correspondence. It is the Deputy President’s current view that your unfair dismissal application should be dismissed under s 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) on the basis that you are not prosecuting your unfair dismissal claim.

    If you wish to proceed with your unfair dismissal application, you must make contact with us by 4pm on Monday, 8 January 2024. If we do not hear from you by that time, your unfair dismissal application may be dismissed without further notice to you. You may contact us by email (chambers.saunders.dp@fwc.gov.au) or by telephone 02 9308 1827. I note that if you do not discontinue your application and the Commission dismisses your application because you are not pursuing your application, a publicly available decision must be published on the Fair Work Commission website.

    Alternatively, if you do not wish to proceed with your unfair dismissal application you can inform us, by reply email, that you wish to discontinue your application.”

  1. Again, no response from Mr Dancaster was received by my Chambers.  

  1. In light of Mr Dancaster’s failure to appear at the Directions Hearing and his failure to take any steps to prosecute or pursue his unfair dismissal claim, together with the absence of any communication from Mr Dancaster, I have decided to exercise my discretion pursuant to s.587(1) of the Act to dismiss Mr Dancaster’s unfair dismissal application against the respondent in these proceedings. The application is therefore dismissed.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR770128>

Details
AGLC
Ben Dancaster v Hyundai Rotem Company [2024] FWC 71
Case
[2024] FWC 71
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ben Dancaster v Hyundai Rotem Company, the applicant sought a remedy for unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was heard by Deputy President Saunders of the Fair Work Commission in Newcastle on 11 January 2024. Mr Dancaster did not attend a directions hearing or a conciliation conference, and he did not respond to several communications from the Deputy President's Chambers, which resulted in his application being dismissed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr Dancaster's failure to appear at the directions hearing and his failure to take any steps to pursue his unfair dismissal claim justified the dismissal of his application under section 587(1) of the Fair Work Act. This section allows the Fair Work Commission to dismiss an application if it considers that the applicant is not prosecuting the application. The court also needed to consider whether Mr Dancaster had any grounds to appeal the decision to dismiss his application.

Deputy President Saunders concluded that Mr Dancaster's lack of engagement with the proceedings, including his failure to respond to multiple communications from the Deputy President's Chambers, demonstrated a clear lack of intention to prosecute his unfair dismissal claim. The absence of any communication from Mr Dancaster after the second reminder further supported the decision to dismiss the application. The Deputy President exercised their discretion under section 587(1) of the Act to dismiss the application, and Mr Dancaster's application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed accordingly.

No further orders were made in the decision, as the dismissal of the application was the final outcome. The decision is now publicly available on the Fair Work Commission website.

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.