Cameron Chalmers v Safiery Pty Ltd
[2025] FWC 1090
•17 APRIL 2025
| [2025] FWC 1090 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Cameron Chalmers
v
Safiery Pty Ltd
(U2025/1166)
| COMMISSIONER HUNT | BRISBANE, 17 APRIL 2025 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy
On 3 February 2025, Mr Cameron Chalmers made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), alleging that he had been dismissed from his employment with Safiery Pty Ltd (the Respondent) and that his dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
The matter was listed for a staff conciliation on 21 March 2025. Mr Chalmers did not attend the conciliation despite numerous attempts by the staff conciliator to contact him without success. Accordingly, the conciliation was unable to proceed.
The matter was allocated to me on 24 March 2025. On 26 March 2025, I issued directions requiring Mr Chalmers to file material in support of his application by 16 April 2025 and notified the parties of a telephone conference to be convened on 8 April 2025. Mr Chalmers did not attend the conference despite multiple attempts to contact him. On account of Mr Chalmers’ failure to attend the conference, I caused my chambers to issue correspondence to the parties, advising that the conference could not proceed due to Mr Chalmers’ non-attendance. In this correspondence, I directed Mr Chalmers to respond in writing to my chambers by 11 April 2025, advising whether he wished to pursue his unfair dismissal application. I also reminded Mr Chalmers of the directions requiring him to file material by 16 April 2025. I advised the parties that if Mr Chalmers failed to respond by 11 April 2025 and failed to file material by 16 April 2025, the application would be at risk of being dismissed under s.587 of the Act.
Mr Chalmers did not respond to the correspondence as directed by 11 April 2025 and failed to file any material in accordance with the directions by 16 April 2025. He has not provided any explanation for his non-compliance with the directions.
Section 587 of the Act provides as follows:
“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.”
Mr Chalmers has not communicated or corresponded with the Commission since the filing of his application on 3 February 2025. Numerous attempts have been made to engage Mr Chalmers in his application to the Commission.
The words, “without limiting when the 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 ss.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).
Considering Mr Chalmers’ failure to:
a) attend the staff conciliation on 21 March 2025;
b) attend the conference before me on 8 April 2025;
c) comply with my directions to advise whether he wishes to pursue his application; and
d) file material in accordance with the directions issued by me
I have decided to dismiss Mr Chalmers’ application pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act for want of prosecution.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR786207>
0
0
0