Edward Morris v Sonoma Baking Company Pty Ltd T/A Sonoma

[2024] FWC 2356

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Edward Morris
v

Sonoma Baking Company Pty Ltd T/A Sonoma

(C2024/4455)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 3 SEPTEMBER 2024

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application dismissed.

On 27 June 2024 Mr Edward Morris made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). On 2 July 2024 Mr Morris made an application under s.365 of the Act. In the second application Mr Morris alleges that he was dismissed in contravention of the general protection provisions in Part 3-1 of the Act.

Section 725 provides as follows:

“A person who has been dismissed must not make an application or complaint of a kind referred to in any one of sections 726 to 732 in relation to the dismissal if any other of those sections applies.”

Section 725 prohibits the making of multiple applications in relation to the same dismissal. In particular, a second application must not be made.

Mr Morris was contacted by Commission staff but he has not responded to any of these attempts.

Section 587 of the Act provides as follows:

“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.

Note:   For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.
(2)       Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the 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)       The FWC may dismiss an application:
(a)       on its own initiative; or
(b)       on application.”

I have decided to dismiss Mr Morris’ general protections claim using the power available under s.587(1)(a). Mr Morris’ second application was not made in accordance with the Act.

The application is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to deal with a dismissal case brought by Edward Morris against Sonoma Baking Company Pty Ltd trading as Sonoma. Mr Morris initially applied for unfair dismissal but later sought to make a general protections claim under the Fair Work Act 2009, which is not permissible under s.725 of the Act. The Commission considered whether this second application was valid and if it should be dismissed under s.587 of the Act.

The central legal issue was whether the second application could proceed. Section 725 of the Fair Work Act prohibits an individual from making multiple applications regarding the same dismissal. This section was invoked by the respondent to argue that the second application should be dismissed. The Commission had to determine if the application was compliant with the Act and if it had reasonable prospects of success. The Commission also had to consider the applicant's lack of engagement with the proceedings as a factor in its decision.

The Deputy President, Easton, found that Mr Morris's second application was not made in accordance with the Act, given that s.725 prohibits such applications. Additionally, the lack of engagement from Mr Morris, despite attempts to contact him, further supported the dismissal of the application. The Deputy President concluded that the application was frivolous or vexatious and had no reasonable prospects of success, warranting dismissal under s.587(1)(a) of the Act.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed Mr Morris’ general protections claim under the Fair Work Act 2009. The dismissal was based on the non-compliance with the Act and the lack of reasonable prospects of success, coupled with Mr Morris’s failure to engage with the proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established