Dawn Mills v City of Joondalup

[2014] FWC 331

[2014] FWC 331

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution

Dawn Mills
v
City of Joondalup
(C2013/7500)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS PERTH, 14 JANUARY 2014

Application to deal with a dispute.

[1] This matter involves an application made by Mrs Dawn Mills (Mrs Mills or the applicant) under section 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The respondent is the City of Joondalup (the respondent).

[2] The application purports to be made under the Dispute Settlement Procedure in the City of Joondalup Inside Workforce Workplace Agreement 2013 [AE404717].

[3] The application was filed on 2 December 2013.

[4] At question “8. Steps already taken under dispute settlement procedure:” of the application the applicant has explained what action she took after receiving a letter of termination from the City of Joondalup.

[5] Amongst other things the applicant says that she filed an unfair dismissal complaint with “Fair Work Australia” on 25 November 2013 but subsequently lodged a notice of discontinuance.

[6] The respondent’s representative, having received this section 739 application, advised my chambers by email that there is no record of Mrs Mills accessing the Dispute Settlement Procedure while she was employed.

[7] The application was the subject of a conference on Monday, 16 December 2013. At the conference the respondent raised a jurisdictional objection to the applicant making this application based on the fact Mrs Mills had not pursued any dispute whilst employed. This objection was explained in detail to the applicant during the conference.

[8] The parties were advised that until this jurisdictional objection was determined the Commission would not be able to consider the fairness or otherwise of any decision made by the applicant’s previous employer to dismiss her which is the subject matter of the applicant’s dispute.

[9] Subsequently I issued written directions to the parties which required firstly Mrs Mills to advise the Commission on whether she wished to proceed with the application. She was directed to provide this advice in writing by Tuesday, 7 January 2013. Additional directions required the respondent and Mrs Mills respectively to file materials regarding the respondent’s jurisdictional objection. These directions which were foreshadowed during the conference were sent to Mrs Mills two days after the conference was held by email and post.

[10] As at the date of this decision there has no advice from Mrs Mills as to whether she wishes to proceed with her application nor any contact from her at all.

[11] Mrs Mills has failed to comply with the Commission’s directions.

The legislation

[12] Section 577 of the Act obliges the 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.

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

Decision

[14] In this case the applicant has failed to comply with the directions to explain her intentions.

[15] The respondent employer is entitled to a fair go including having their jurisdictional objection to this application determined within a reasonable time.

[16] The applicant in the circumstances here has been given a fair go.

[17] Consequently my decision is that this application should now dismissed on the initiative of the Commission under section 587 (3) of the Act.

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

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR546770>