Emma Cropper v Land Transport

Case [2023] FWC 2998


[2023] FWC 2998

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Emma Cropper
v

Land Transport

(U2023/5772)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 17 NOVEMBER 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

  1. Emma Cropper (the Applicant) was employed by Land Transport (the Respondent) from 19 September 2022 until she was dismissed on the 26 June 2023.

  1. On the 28 June 2023, the Applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

  1. The legal business name nominated by the Respondent in their F3 – Employer’s Response Form in this matter was BRL Holdings Pty Ltd.

  1. On the 21 September 2023, correspondence was sent to the Applicant in relation to the legal business name discrepancy and she was required to respond by the 28 September 2023. No response was received at this time.

  1. Further correspondence was sent to the Applicant on the 29 September 2023 and she was required to respond by 5:00 pm on the 4 October 2023. It was in this correspondence that the Applicant was advised her application may be dismissed without any notice if no response was received.

  1. 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.

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.”

  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

<PR768323>

Details
AGLC
Emma Cropper v Land Transport [2023] FWC 2998
Case
[2023] FWC 2998
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Emma Cropper brought an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal against her former employer, Land Transport, pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Cropper was employed by Land Transport from 19 September 2022 until her dismissal on 26 June 2023. The dispute centred on the fairness of Cropper's dismissal and whether it complied with the provisions of the Act. The case was heard by the Fair Work Commission, specifically Vice President Catanzariti, who was tasked with deciding whether the dismissal was unfair and, if so, what remedy should be granted.

The central legal issue for the Commission to determine was whether the dismissal of Cropper was unfair under the Act. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the application was properly prosecuted and whether it had reasonable prospects of success. The Commission also had to consider whether the application should be dismissed under s.587 of the Act for not being made in accordance with the Act, being frivolous or vexatious, or having no reasonable prospects of success. The Respondent raised a procedural issue regarding the correct legal business name, which the Applicant failed to address, potentially impacting the prosecution of the application.

The Commission found that the Applicant had failed to respond to correspondence regarding the correct legal business name and had not responded to subsequent notices that her application might be dismissed if no response was received. The Vice President concluded that the application was not being prosecuted and had no reasonable prospects of success. Therefore, the Commission decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act. The Vice President's decision was based on the procedural failures of the Applicant and the lack of response to correspondence from the Commission.

The final order issued by the Vice President was to dismiss the application for unfair dismissal for want of prosecution. This decision underscores the importance of compliance with procedural requirements and the need for applicants to actively engage with the Commission to ensure their applications are properly prosecuted.

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.