Cheri May v Newmont Mining Services Pty Limited

[2013] FWC 4934

[2013] FWC 4934

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Cheri May
v
Newmont Mining Services Pty Limited
(U2013/1562)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS PERTH, 23 JULY 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] This matter involves an application made by Ms Cheri Rose May (the applicant) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. The respondent is Newmont Mining Services Pty Limited.

[2] This application was the subject of a conference with a Fair Work Commission conciliator however it was not resolved and so it has been referred to myself for determination.

[3] I wrote to the applicant advising that the matter would be listed for a formal determinative proceeding and explaining the procedure involved. The letter requested that the applicant advise by 9 July 2013 whether she wished to proceed with that hearing or wished to discontinue the application. The letter was sent by email and post.

[4] No response was received.

[5] A follow up letter was sent to the applicant by post and email directing that she respond by 19 July 2013. No response has been received from the applicant.

[6] That correspondence explained that a lack of response would be taken as an indication that she did not want to continue with the application and the matter would be dismissed.

The legislation

[7] Section 577 of the Act obliges the Fair Work Commission to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is fair, just and is quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities and is open and transparent and promotes harmonious and cooperative workplace relations.

[8] Further section 578 of the Act relevantly requires that in performing functions or exercising powers in relation to a matter the Fair Work Commission must take into account the Objects of the relevant Part of the Act.

[9] A section 394 application falls under Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal of the Act.

[10] The Objects of Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal are prescribed in section 381 of the Act. These Objects include the establishment of procedures dealing with unfair dismissal that are quick, flexible and informal and address the needs of employers and employees and involve procedures and remedies that ensure a “fair go all around” is accorded to both the employer and employee concerned.

[11] Section 587(3) of the Act empowers the Fair Work Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative.

Decision

[12] In this case the applicant has repeatedly failed to comply with the directions to explain her intentions. The applicant has not contacted the Fair Work Commission at all.

[13] The applicant has been put on notice as to the consequence of non compliance.

[14] The respondent employer is entitled to a fair go including having the claim made against them determined within a reasonable time.

[15] The applicant in the circumstances here has been given a fair go.

[16] Consequently my decision is that this application for an unfair dismissal remedy should now be dismissed on the initiative of the Fair Work Commission under section 587(3) of the Act.

[17] An order to this effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR539226>