Brandon Harris v DeLacey Electrical Service

[2020] FWC 3750

[2020] FWC 3750

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Brandon Harris
v
DeLacey Electrical Service
(U2020/5764)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI SYDNEY, 17 JULY 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 27 April 2020, Brandon Harris (the applicant) applied to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) against his former employer, ‘DeLacey Electrical Service’.

[2] The application was listed before a Commission staff conciliator on 27 May 2020. The applicant did not attend the conciliation.

[3] The application was then allocated to me. My chambers sent correspondence to the applicant on 18 June 2020, directing him to advise us by 4:00 pm on 25 June 2020 whether he still pressed his application. However, we received no response from the applicant by that time.

[4] On 26 June 2020, my chambers sent further correspondence to the applicant, directing him to provide a response by 4:00 pm on 1 July 2020. He was advised that in the absence of a reply, his application may be dismissed.

[5] To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

[6] Section 587 of the Act provides:

“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.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3-2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the 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) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

[7] The words, “[w]ithout limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

[8] In the circumstances, I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR721055>