Christopher Wintle v v & v Walsh Abattoirs

[2018] FWC 7125

[2018] FWC 7125

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Christopher Wintle
v
V & V Walsh Abattoirs
(U2018/8382)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS PERTH, 26 NOVEMBER 2018

Termination of employment.

[1] This matter involves an application made by Mr Christopher Wintle (the Applicant) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. The respondent is V & V Walsh Abattoirs.

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

[3] Correspondence was sent to the Applicant by email and post and to his representative, The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, by email on 18 October 2018 notifying of the hearing date and with directions to both parties. The Applicant was directed to provide written materials in support of the application by 8 November 2018. Nothing was received from the Applicant or on his behalf by this date.

[4] Further correspondence was emailed to the Applicant and his representative on 9 November 2018 regarding the failure to comply with the Fair Work Commission’s direction and directing him to provide the materials by 16 November 2018 and advising a further failure to comply would be grounds for the application to be dismissed.

[5] As at the date of this decision the Applicant has not filed any materials as directed nor contacted the Fair Work Commission.

The legislation

[6] 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.

[7] 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.

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

[9] 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.

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

Decision

[11] In this case the Applicant has failed to comply with the Commission’s directions and was on notice that non-compliance would be grounds for the application to be dismissed.

[12] The Applicant in the circumstances here has been given a fair go.

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

[14] 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.

[15] An order [PR702495] to this effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR702494>