| [2024] FWC 16 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Gayle Insull
v
Trilogy Disability Foundation Ltd
(U2023/10343)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 4 JANUARY 2024 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy
Gayle Insull (the Applicant) was employed by Trilogy Disability Foundation Ltd (the Respondent) from 19 April 2023 until she was dismissed on 24 October 2023.
On 24 October 2023, the Applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
The legal business name nominated by the Respondent in their F3 – Employer’s Response Form in this matter was Trilogy Disability Foundation.
The Respondent also raised an objection in the F3 – Employer’s Response Form stating that the Applicant does not meet the minimum employment period.
On 14 December 2023, correspondence was sent to the Applicant in relation to the jurisdictional issues mentioned above and she was required to respond by 21 December 2023. No response was received at this time.
Further correspondence was sent to the Applicant on 22 December 2023 and she was required to respond by 5:00pm on 2 January 2024. It was in this correspondence that the Applicant was advised her application would be dismissed without any notice if no response was received.
To date, the Applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence sent by my Chambers.
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.”
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).
In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.
An order to that effect will issue with this decision.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR769929>
- AGLC
- Gayle Insull v Trilogy Disability Foundation Ltd [2024] FWC 16
- Case
- [2024] FWC 16
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commission considered section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which allows for 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. Despite Trilogy Disability Foundation Ltd’s objection regarding the minimum employment period, the Commission's broader authority to dismiss applications was emphasised. The Commission noted that Ms Insull had failed to respond to multiple communications regarding the jurisdictional issues and the potential dismissal of her application. Given her inaction, the Commission concluded that the application was not being prosecuted and decided to dismiss it without further notice.
The Vice President, Catanzariti, concluded that the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution. This decision was made under the authority granted by section 587(3)(a) of the Act, which permits the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative if it is not being prosecuted. The decision reflects the Commission's discretion to manage its caseload effectively and ensure that applications are pursued diligently.
An order dismissing the application for unfair dismissal will be issued in accordance with this decision.
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.