Christopher Thomson v Vodafone Hutchinson Australia T/A Vodafone

[2011] FWA 2825

[2011] FWA 2825

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Christopher Thomson
v
Vodafone Hutchinson Australia T/A Vodafone
(U2011/5525)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT BRISBANE, 11 MAY 2011

Application for unfair dismissal remedy - failure to prosecute.

[1] Mr Christopher Thomson (the Applicant) lodged an application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for relief from unfair dismissal on 28 February 2011 with respect to the termination of his employment from Vodafone Hutchinson Australia T/A Vodafone (Vodafone).

[2] Vodafone indicated that it had two jurisdictional objections to the application. Firstly, that the Applicant had not been employed by Vodafone for the requisite 6 months (s.382) and hence is not protected from unfair dismissal and secondly, that the application had been filed outside the 14 day period (s.394(2)).

[3] The Applicant failed to attend a conciliation conference convened to deal with the matter. The jurisdictional objection was therefore listed for arbitration on 10 May 2011 in Brisbane.

[4] Prior to the hearing my associate contacted the Applicant by email to remind him of the hearing and to seek that, if he did not intend to continue with the application, he advise of this in writing. The Applicant responded querying the listing of the matter for hearing. Again my associate contacted him to ask that, if he did not intend to pursue the matter, he advise of this in writing.

[5] The Applicant did not advise that he intended to withdraw his application. The Applicant failed to attend the hearing of the jurisdictional objection.

[6] The Applicant, having lodged an application of relief from unfair dismissal, has taken no steps to prosecute his case and has not had the courtesy to advise Fair Work Australia that he wished to withdraw his application.

[7] Based on the material filed by Vodafone, and the lack of any material to the contrary filed by the Applicant, it is likely the application would have been dismissed as the Applicant did not serve the minimum employment period necessary to be protected from unfair dismissal. Further, the Applicant submitted no material to explain the delay in lodging the application. As it is I am not required to determine either of these matters.

[8] The application is dismissed for want of prosecution. An order to this effect will be issued.

COMMISSIONER

Hearing details:

2010.

Brisbane:

May 10.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR509400>