| [2023] FWC 1298 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Chantelle Milanese
v
Dukes Coffee Roasters
(U2023/2669)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 1 JUNE 2023 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.
Chantelle Milanese (the applicant) was employed by Dukes Coffee Roasters (the respondent) from the 13th of June 2022 until she was dismissed on the 30th of March 2023.
On the 1st of April 2023, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
The legal business name nominated by the respondent in their F3 – Employer’s Response Form in this matter was Dukes Specialty Coffee Pty Ltd.
On the 15th of May 2023, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the legal business name discrepancy and she was required to respond by the 22nd of May 2023. No response was received at this time.
Further correspondence was sent to the applicant on the 23rd of May 2023 and she was required to respond by the 26th of May 2023 at 5:00pm. It was in this correspondence the applicant was notified that if no response was received, her application would be dismissed without any further notice.
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.
(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.
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
<PR762714>
- AGLC
- Chantelle Milanese v Dukes Coffee Roasters [2023] FWC 1298
- Case
- [2023] FWC 1298
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Milanese’s application was dismissed because she did not respond to any correspondence sent by the Commission in relation to the discrepancy in the respondent's legal business name. The Commission considered section 587 of the Act, which provides that the Commission may dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act, or if it is frivolous or vexatious, or if it has no reasonable prospects of success. However, the Commission did not need to consider whether Milanese’s application was frivolous or vexatious, or whether it had no reasonable prospects of success, as section 587(3)(a) allowed the Commission to dismiss the application on its own initiative.
In light of the above, the Vice President decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to section 587(3)(a) of the Act. An order to that effect will issue 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.