Dylan Green v Jones Carpentry and Building

Case [2023] FWC 365


[2023] FWC 365

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Dylan Green
v

Jones Carpentry and Building

(U2023/79)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 16 FEBRUARY 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

  1. Dylan Green (the applicant) was employed by Jones Carpentry and Building (the respondent) from the 20th of September 2021 until he was dismissed on the 16th of December 2022.

  1. On the 4th of January 2023, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

  2. The legal business name nominated by the respondent in their F3 – Employer’s Response Form in this matter was Matthew Robert Jones.

  3. The respondent also raised an objection to the application, claiming that they were not a National Systematic Employer.

  4. On the 1st of February 2023, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the legal business name discrepancy and he was required to respond by the 8th of February 2023. No response was received at this time.

  5. Further correspondence was sent to the applicant on the 9th of February 2023 and he was required to respond by 5:00pm the 14th of February 2023. It was in this correspondence that the applicant was advised his application would be dismissed without any notice if no response was received.

  6. To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence sent by my Chambers.

  1. Section 587 of the Act provides:

587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

  1. The words, “Without limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act, establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

  1. In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

  1. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR750598>

Details
AGLC
Dylan Green v Jones Carpentry and Building [2023] FWC 365
Case
[2023] FWC 365
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Dylan Green, applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a remedy in respect of an unfair dismissal. The application was made against Jones Carpentry and Building, with Matthew Robert Jones identified as the respondent. The respondent contested the application, asserting that it was not a National Systematic Employer and that the application was not made in accordance with the Act. Green was required to respond to correspondence regarding the discrepancies in the respondent's legal business name, but failed to do so.

The Commission considered the statutory basis for dismissing an application, particularly section 587 of the Act, which permits the dismissal of an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act, is frivolous or vexatious, or has no reasonable prospects of success. The Commission determined that the application was not made in accordance with the Act due to the respondent's objection regarding the legal business name. Furthermore, the Commission held that the application was subject to dismissal due to Green's failure to respond to correspondence from the Commission. The Commission dismissed the application for want of prosecution, as Green did not respond to the correspondence and therefore the application could not proceed.

The Commission exercised its discretion under section 587(3)(a) of the Act to dismiss the application on its own initiative. The Commission emphasised that its jurisdiction to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in section 587(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act. In this instance, the application was dismissed due to Green's failure to respond to correspondence and the respondent's objection regarding the legal business name.

An order will issue with this decision, dismissing the application for unfair dismissal made by Green against Jones Carpentry and Building.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.