Connor Jones v TT Sandgate Pty Ltd

[2024] FWC 1613

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Connor Jones
v

TT Sandgate Pty Ltd

(U2024/4501)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS

NEWCASTLE, 20 JUNE 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application dismissed

This decision relates to an unfair dismissal application by Mr Connor Jones pursuant to s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) against his former employer, TT Sandgate Pty Ltd.

On 5 June 2024, a directions hearing and brief conciliation were held, by telephone, and an in-principle agreement was reached between the parties. On 6 June 2024, the respondent provided a signed copy of a proposed settlement agreement to my Chambers. Mr Jones was subsequently given an opportunity to provide a signed copy of the agreement or an update by 4pm on 7 June 2024. Mr Jones did not provide an update or signed copy of the agreement.

A directions hearing was held, by telephone, on 13 June 2024. No appearance was made by or on behalf of Mr Jones. The matter was then listed for a further directions hearing, by telephone, at 9am on 19 June 2024. Mr Jones was warned that his unfair dismissal application may be dismissed if he did not attend the directions hearing on 19 June 2024. Again, there was no appearance by or on behalf of Mr Jones at the directions hearing on 19 June 2024. Attempts were made to contact Mr Jones directly by telephone at the time of both directions hearings.

Following the directions hearing at 9am on 19 June 2024, Mr Jones given a final opportunity to pursue his unfair dismissal application and was directed to make contact with the Commission by 10am on Thursday, 20 June 2024. He was also warned that if he did not make contact with the Commission by that time his unfair dismissal application may be dismissed without further notice to him. Mr Jones did not contact the Commission prior to 10am on 20 June 2024. In fact, the Commission has not received any communication from Mr Jones since 5 June 2024.

For the reasons set out above, I have decided to exercise my discretion pursuant to s 587(1) of the Act to dismiss Mr Jones’s unfair dismissal application against the respondent in these proceedings. Mr Jones’s unfair dismissal application is therefore dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Connor Jones filed an unfair dismissal application against TT Sandgate Pty Ltd under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging wrongful termination of his employment. The case was heard by the Fair Work Commission, presided over by Deputy President Saunders, in Newcastle on 20 June 2024. After a series of directions hearings and attempts at conciliation, the Commission found that Mr Jones did not engage with the proceedings or provide any updates on the proposed settlement agreement. Consequently, the Commission dismissed Mr Jones's application due to his failure to participate in the proceedings.

The legal issues before the Court included whether Mr Jones had a valid claim for unfair dismissal and whether the Commission should exercise its discretion to dismiss the application under section 587(1) of the Act due to the applicant's non-compliance with procedural requirements. The Court had to consider the procedural steps taken by both parties, including the initial agreement, missed deadlines, and the lack of communication from Mr Jones.

The Court held that Mr Jones's failure to respond to the proposed settlement agreement, his absence from the directions hearings, and his lack of communication with the Commission constituted non-compliance with the procedural requirements. Given these circumstances, the Court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application. The Court found that Mr Jones had ample opportunities to engage in the proceedings and rectify his non-compliance, but he failed to do so. Consequently, the Court dismissed the unfair dismissal application.

The Court did not make any specific orders regarding the unfair dismissal claim, as the application was dismissed outright.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established