Dean Stafrace v Seda Group T/A Sedtep

[2015] FWC 5420

[2015] FWC 5420

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Dean Stafrace
v
SEDA Group T/A SEDTEP
(U2015/8368)

COMMISSIONER WILSON MELBOURNE, 10 AUGUST 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 10 June 2015, Mr Dean Stafrace made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Stafrace’s employment had been terminated by SEDA Group on 19 May 2015.

[2] As the application was filed one day late, directions were issued and the matter was listed for an extension of time hearing.

[3] Mr Stafrace was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material he wished to rely on by noon, on 30 June 2015.

[4] Mr Stafrace did not comply with this direction.

[5] On 13 July 2015, SEDA Group filed an objection to the application and sought the dismissal of Mr Stafrace’s application. SEDA Group based their objection on the ground that Mr Stafrace failed to comply with directions.

[6] On 14 July 2015, Mr Stafrace advised the Fair Work Commission via email that he had been unwell and that was the reason for his lack of contact.

[7] On 16 July 2015, Mr Stafrace was sent correspondence informing him of SEDA Group’s section 399A application. Mr Stafrace was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of SEDA Group’s application by close of business, on 24 July 2015. Mr Stafrace was advised that if he failed to comply with this direction, his application would be dismissed.

[8] Mr Stafrace did not file any material with the Commission.

[9] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

(c) failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded.

....
(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.

[10] I am satisfied that SEDA Group’s objection filed on 13 July 2015 is an application to have the matter dismissed for Mr Stafrace’s failure to comply with a direction.

[11] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[12] As Mr Stafrace did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I will determine the application on the papers.

[13] After considering all the material, Mr Stafrace’s application for remedy from unfair dismissal is dismissed. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR570587>