Christopher Parslow v Chem Pack Pty Ltd

[2013] FWC 4926

[2013] FWC 4926

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Christopher Parslow
v
Chem Pack Pty Ltd
(U2013/8455)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY MELBOURNE, 24 JULY 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal dismissed pursuant to s.399A of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[1] On 11 April 2013, an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for remedy from unfair dismissal was lodged by Mr Christopher Parslow (the Applicant). The Applicant’s employment had been terminated by Chem Pack Pty Ltd (the Respondent) on 21 March 2013.

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation however, it could not take place. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] The Applicant was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material he wished to rely on by noon, 21 June 2013.

[4] The Applicant failed to comply with this direction.

[5] A file note discloses that the Applicant was contacted by the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) on 17 June 2013. The Applicant was advised of the Commission’s pro bono program and was reminded that the filing date of his submissions was imminent.

[6] On 3 July 2013, the Respondent made an application, pursuant to s.399A(1)(b) and s.587(1)(c) of the Act, that the matter be dismissed as the Applicant had failed to comply with a direction of the Commission. Further, it was submitted that as the Applicant had not served the minimum employment period of 6 months the Applicant was not protected from unfair dismissal and the application should be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospects of success.

[7] On 11 July 2013, the Applicant was sent correspondence informing him of the Respondent’s application. The Applicant was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of the Respondent’s application by close of business, 18 July 2013. The Applicant was advised that if he failed to comply with the direction, the application would be dismissed.

[8] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

(c) failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded.

Note 1: For another power of the FWC to dismiss applications for orders under Division 4, see section 587.

Note 2: The FWC may make an order for costs if the applicant’s failure causes the other party to the matter to incur costs (see section 400A).

(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.

[9] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[10] As the Applicant did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I have decided to determine the application on the papers.

[11] After considering all the material before me, I have decided to dismiss the Applicant’s application for remedy from unfair dismissal pursuant to s.399A(1)(b) of the Act. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR539215>