Digby Woods v Wilson Parking

[2019] FWC 6263

[2019] FWC 6263

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution in relation to flexible working arrangements

Digby Woods
v
Wilson Parking
(C2019/4876)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS PERTH, 9 SEPTEMBER 2019

Alleged dispute - application dismissed.

[1] This decision concerns an application made by Mr Digby John Woods (Mr Woods) under section 739 the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

[2] The application filed by Mr Woods was incomplete, in that several questions namely 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 were not answered.

[3] The Commission’s client service’s staff left a voicemail for Mr Woods explaining these questions needed to be answered.

[4] At my direction on 12 August 2019, my Associate emailed Mr Woods explaining the jurisdiction under section 739 of the Act, noting that some pages attached to his application were from an industrial agreement made by the West Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The email directed him to provide full and complete answers to questions 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 within 14 days.

[5] Mr Woods did in response file an amended application.

[6] Having reviewed this the Commission wrote to Mr Woods and noted that he again had provided no answer to question 1.2. and the answers Mr Wood had given to questions 1.3 and 1.4 said in effect that, according to the Respondent there is no clause for this section.

[7] The letter explained that his application did not identify any industrial instruments or other written agreement that contained a dispute resolution procedure that empower the Commission to deal with whatever his dispute was.

[8] The letter advised that my preliminary view was that there was no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and his application should be dismissed.

[9] My letter to Mr Woods directed him that if he did not accept this preliminary view and wished to continue with his application he should provide a witness statement and an outline of submissions explaining on what basis the Commission has jurisdiction to deal with this application, by no later than 2 September 2019.

[10] The letter then advised that if no response from him was received by that date his application would be dismissed without further notice.

[11] Mr Woods has not responded to this letter at the date of this decision.

[12] Rule 8 of the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 provides that if the President provides a form for a particular purpose the approved form must be used for the purpose. In this case the approved form is a Form F10 Application for the Commission to deal with the dispute in accordance with the dispute settlement procedure (Form), however the Applicant's form F10 is incomplete. The application has not been made in compliance with the Commission's rules. Section 585 of the Act requires an application to the Commission to be made in accordance with the procedural rules relating to applications of that kind. Consequently, the application will be dismissed under section 587(1)(a) because the application has not been made in accordance with the Act.

[13] In any event, even if the Form had been fully completed, as explained in my letter to Mr Woods, because his application does not identify any industrial instrument or other written agreement which contains a dispute resolution procedure, empowering the Commission to deal with a dispute there is no jurisdiction for the Commission under section 739 of the Act to consider his application. Due to this lack of jurisdiction the application would also be dismissed.

[14] An order [PR712143] will now be issued dismissing this application.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR712142>