Glen Marchwicki v Phillip Weatherley

Case [2024] FWC 1357


[2024] FWC 1357

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Glen Marchwicki
v

Phillip Weatherley

(U2024/3502)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 3 JUNE 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

  1. Mr Glen Marchwicki was dismissed from his employment on 10 March 2024. On 28 March 2024, Mr Marchwicki filed an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). In his application Mr Marchwicki named “Phillip Weatherley” as his former employer.

  1. The legal business name nominated by the Respondent in its F3 – Employer’s Response Form was “Phillip Weatherley Plumbing Pty Ltd.”

  1. On 30 April 2024, correspondence was sent to Mr Marchwicki raising an administrative query about the legal name of his former employer. The correspondence invited Mr Marchwicki to request an amendment to his application to name a different entity as his former employer, or to provide submissions as to why the entity he nominated was the correct entity. Mr Marchwicki was required to respond by 7 May 2024. Mr Marchwicki did not respond to this correspondence.

  2. On 8 May 2024, further correspondence was sent to Mr Marchwicki making the same request. Mr Marchwicki was required to respond by 14 May 2024. Mr Marchwicki was also advised that his application may be dismissed without further notice if he did not respond. Mr Marchwicki did not respond to this correspondence.

  1. On 15 May 2024, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Marchwicki via telephone. However, Mr Marchwicki could not be reached. A voicemail message was left advising Mr Marchwicki to respond to the correspondence as soon as possible. The voicemail also warned that if he did not contact the Commission his application would be dismissed without further notice.

  1. On the same day my Chambers missed a call from Mr Marchwicki. No voicemail was left. My chambers returned this call however Mr Marchwicki could not be reached. A voicemail message was left advising Mr Marchwicki to respond to the correspondence as soon as possible.

  1. To date, Mr Marchwicki has not provided a response to the administrative legal name query raised with him.

  1. Section 587 of the Act provides:

587  Dismissing applications

(a)   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.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(b)   on its own initiative; or

(c)   on application.

  1. Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application if it is apparent that the applicant has stopped pursuing or participating in the proceedings they commenced. Section 587(3) allows the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative, so long as the applicant has been afforded procedural fairness. The words “without limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” in s.587(1) confirm that the power to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

  1. If an applicant’s conduct or omissions show that they are no longer willing to participate in their own case the Commission is not required to persevere with the application (see Viavattene v Health Care Australia [2013] FWCFB 2532 at [39]).

  2. In these circumstances I am satisfied that the facility under s.587 can and should be engaged to dismiss Mr Marchwicki’s application. The Commission’s query about the legal name of the respondent was administrative and should have been resolved very quickly to allow Mr Marchwicki’s claim to progress.

  1. Mr Marchwicki has also been on notice of the likely consequences for his application if he did not respond to the Commission’s inquiry and it is quite possible that he has abandoned his application.

  2. For these reasons I have decided to dismiss Mr Marchwicki’s application on my own initiative for want of prosecution, utilising the facility provided by s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

  1. I have separately made an order to this effect (PR775289).


DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR775288>

Details
AGLC
Glen Marchwicki v Phillip Weatherley [2024] FWC 1357
Case
[2024] FWC 1357
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr. Glen Marchwicki, sought relief for an unfair dismissal against Phillip Weatherley, who he identified as his former employer. This matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The central dispute arose from Mr. Marchwicki's termination of employment on 10 March 2024, which he contested as unfair. Phillip Weatherley, the respondent, was identified in the application as the employer, though it was later clarified that the correct entity should have been Phillip Weatherley Plumbing Pty Ltd.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the procedural aspects of the application and the implications of Mr. Marchwicki's failure to respond to administrative queries regarding the correct legal entity of his former employer. The court had to determine whether the application could be dismissed due to procedural non-compliance and Mr. Marchwicki's apparent abandonment of his case. The court's analysis focused on section 587 of the Fair Work Act, which allows for the dismissal of applications under various circumstances, including lack of prosecution.

The Fair Work Commission, exercising its discretion under section 587, found that Mr. Marchwicki's failure to respond to multiple communications regarding the correct legal name of the respondent constituted a lack of prosecution. The Commission determined that Mr. Marchwicki had not demonstrated a willingness to pursue his application, particularly given his failure to respond despite multiple opportunities and warnings about the consequences of not doing so. This inaction led the Deputy President to conclude that the application should be dismissed on the basis of want of prosecution. The decision was made on the Deputy President's own initiative, ensuring that procedural fairness was maintained in the process.

Consequently, the Fair Work Commission dismissed Mr. Marchwicki's application for unfair dismissal. An order to this effect was issued, reflecting the decision to terminate the proceedings due to the applicant's lack of engagement and failure to address the administrative query regarding the correct legal entity.

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.