Cam Meridian v Bunnings Group Limited

[2024] FWC 1035

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Cam Meridian
v

Bunnings Group Limited

(U2024/424)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 19 APRIL 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Cam Meridian (the Applicant) was employed by Bunnings Group Limited (the Respondent) until he was dismissed on 2 January 2024.

On 11 January 2024, the Applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

A conciliation conference was scheduled on 25 March 2024 however Mr Meridian did not attend.

On 27 March 2024, correspondence was sent to the Applicant in relation to his lack of attendance at a scheduled conciliation and he was required to respond by 3 April 2024. No response was received at this time.
Further correspondence was sent to the Applicant on 5 April 2024, and he was required to respond by 5:00pm on 10 April 2024. It was in this correspondence that the Applicant was advised the application may be dismissed without any notice if no response was received. No response was received at this time.

On 11 April 2024 the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant via telephone. However, the Applicant could not be reached as he had provided an invalid phone number. On the same day, the Respondent contacted the Commission to follow up on the dismissal of the application. Correspondence was sent to both parties providing the Applicant a final opportunity to respond by 18 April 2024. It was in this correspondence that the Applicant was advised the application would be dismissed without any notice if no response was received.

To date, the Applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence sent by my Chambers.

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, or an application under section 527F that does not consist solely of an application for a stop sexual harassment order, 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.

The words, “Without 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).

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

An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was tasked with considering an application for unfair dismissal lodged by Cam Meridian against his former employer, Bunnings Group Limited. Mr. Meridian was dismissed from his position on January 2, 2024, and subsequently applied for a remedy for unfair dismissal under Section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 on January 11, 2024. Despite several attempts to facilitate a resolution, including scheduling a conciliation conference on March 25, 2024, Mr. Meridian failed to attend or engage in any further proceedings. Multiple correspondences were sent to him, demanding responses by specific deadlines, yet he did not comply. The Commission's attempts to contact him via an invalid phone number also proved futile, leading to the decision to dismiss the application.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the application for unfair dismissal could be dismissed due to the Applicant's lack of engagement and response to the Commission's communications. The Court had to determine if the application could be dismissed under Section 587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009, which allows the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative if it is not pursued diligently. The Applicant's failure to attend the conciliation conference, respond to correspondences, and engage with the Commission's attempts to contact him were central to the decision. The Commission noted that the Applicant's inaction and unresponsiveness indicated a lack of pursuit of the application, thereby warranting its dismissal.

In reaching its decision, the Commission considered the provisions of Section 587 of the Act, which outlines the circumstances under which an application may be dismissed. The Commission noted that the Applicant's failure to attend the conciliation conference and respond to multiple communications from the Commission demonstrated a lack of diligence in pursuing his application. The repeated failure to engage with the Commission's attempts to facilitate a resolution led to the conclusion that the application had no reasonable prospects of success. Therefore, the Commission decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution, in line with Section 587(3)(a) of the Act. This decision was based on the Applicant's persistent unresponsiveness and failure to engage with the proceedings, which undermined the prospects of the application being successful.

An order dismissing the application for unfair dismissal will be issued in accordance with the decision. This dismissal is due to the Applicant's lack of prosecution of the application, as outlined in Section 587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission's decision reflects its authority to dismiss applications that are not pursued diligently and highlights the importance of engagement and responsiveness in legal proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established