Coraliegh Cameron v Wholesale Transport WA T/A Meckering Roadhouse

[2020] FWC 5887

[2020] FWC 5887

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Coraliegh Cameron
v
Wholesale Transport WA T/A Meckering Roadhouse
(U2020/11834)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS PERTH, 6 NOVEMBER 2020

Termination of employment.

[1] This matter involves an application made by Ms Coraliegh Cameron (the Applicant) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. The respondent is Wholesale Transport WA T/A Meckering Roadhouse.

[2] The application was listed for a conference with a Fair Work Commission (the Commission) conciliator on 21 September 2020, however both parties failed to participate.

[3] Correspondence was sent to both parties, that same day requesting that if either party wanted the matter to proceed to a further conciliation they should email that request within two working days. Nothing was received from either party.

[4] In early October 2020 the Commission’s staff left multiple voice messages for the Applicant to advise the Commission of her intentions regarding this application. No response was received from the Applicant, so the matter was referred to me for determination.

[5] I wrote to the Applicant on 19 October 2020 advising that the matter would be listed for a formal determinative proceeding and explaining the procedure involved. The letter requested that the Applicant advise whether she wished to proceed with that hearing or to discontinue the application by 4 November 2020. The letter was sent by email and express post and explained that a lack of a response would be taken as an indication that she did not want to continue with the application and the matter would be dismissed without further notice.

[6] As at the date of this decision there has been no response or contact from the Applicant.

The legislation

[7] Section 577 of the Act obliges the Commission to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is fair and 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 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 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.

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

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

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

[16] An order [PR724175] to this effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR724237>