Dane Crimmins v Ch & NH Pty Ltd Summary

[2024] FWC 869

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Dane Crimmins
v

CH & NH Pty Ltd

(U2023/11044)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS

NEWCASTLE, 4 APRIL 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application dismissed

This decision relates to an unfair dismissal application by Mr Dane Crimmins pursuant to s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) against his former employer, CH & NH Pty Ltd.

The matter was listed for a directions hearing, by telephone, on 28 March 2024. Mr Crimmins did not appear at the directions hearing.

At 4:49pm on 28 March 2024, the following email was sent from my Chambers to Mr Crimmins:
“Dear Mr Crimmins
U2023/11044 - Mr Dane Crimmins v CH & NH Pty Ltd
This matter was listed for directions by telephone before Deputy President Saunders at 4pm today pursuant to a Notice of Listing sent to the parties on Tuesday 26 March 2024.
There was no appearance by you or on your behalf at the directions hearing. The Respondent attended and participated in the directions hearing.
This matter is now listed for a further directions hearing (by telephone) at 3pm, Thursday 4 April 2024. It is necessary for both parties to participate in this directions hearing. If you do not participate in the directions hearing on Thursday 4 April 2024 at 3pm, your unfair dismissal application may be dismissed without further prior notice to you.
A notice of listing has just been sent out and is also attached to this email.”
In the period between the sending of this email to Mr Crimmins at 4:49pm on 28 March 2024 and the directions hearing at 3pm on 4 April 2024, Mr Crimmins sent dozens of abusive emails to my Chambers. Most of these emails were directed at the Respondent, but some were directed at the Commission. For example, at 10:35pm on 3 April 2024 Mr Crimmins wrote:

“And you mr big fair work commission are fuckin blind pulling your pud you should of caught on this ploy antics years ago how many times do I got spell it for you bunch illiterates goat leggerd fuckin retarts are blind aswell silly bunch of queers.”

Mr Crimmins did not attend the directions hearing at 3pm on 4 April 2024, nor did he request that an alternative time or date be set for this directions hearing.

In light of Mr Crimmins’ failure to appear at the directions hearings on 28 March 2024 and 4 April 2024, I have decided to exercise my discretion pursuant to s 587(1) of the Act to dismiss Mr Crimmins’ unfair dismissal application against the respondent in these proceedings. The application is therefore dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dane Crimmins brought a claim for unfair dismissal against his former employer, CH & NH Pty Ltd, pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was initially scheduled for a directions hearing via telephone on 28 March 2024, but Mr Crimmins did not appear. Despite receiving an email from the Commission notifying him of the hearing and warning of potential dismissal if he did not attend the rescheduled hearing on 4 April 2024, Mr Crimmins failed to appear again. In addition, during the period between the two hearings, Mr Crimmins sent numerous abusive emails to the Commission and the Respondent. These emails included offensive language and personal insults directed at both the Commission and the Respondent.

The legal issues before the Deputy President were whether Mr Crimmins' failure to attend the scheduled directions hearings justified the exercise of the Court's discretion to dismiss the application under section 587(1) of the Fair Work Act. The court had to consider Mr Crimmins' conduct, including his failure to participate in the proceedings and his abusive communications. The court also had to determine whether these actions warranted the dismissal of his unfair dismissal application.

The Deputy President found that Mr Crimmins' failure to appear at both directions hearings, coupled with his abusive email conduct, provided sufficient grounds to exercise the Court's discretion to dismiss the application. The court noted that participation in the proceedings was mandatory and that Mr Crimmins' conduct was both disrespectful and disruptive. Consequently, the Deputy President dismissed Mr Crimmins' unfair dismissal application against CH & NH Pty Ltd.

Dane Crimmins v Ch & NH Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established