Graham Craggs v SC WA Holdings Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 673

[2025] FWC 673

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Graham Craggs
v

SC WA Holdings Pty Ltd

(U2025/533)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'KEEFFE PERTH, 6 MARCH 2025

Applicant failed to attend conciliation – Applicant failed to respond to correspondence - application dismissed pursuant to s.587 of the Act

1. On 15 January 2025 Mr Graham Craggs (the Applicant) applied under s.394 of the Fair Work Act (the Act) for a remedy for alleged unfair dismissal. On 16 February 2025 SC WA Holdings Pty Ltd (the Respondent) lodged a response to the application, indicating a jurisdictional objection that the Applicant had not been dismissed. The matter was allocated to my Chambers on 20 February 2025 and on 21 February 2025 the parties were sent a notice of listing for a conciliation conference to be held on 28 February 2025.

1. Having examined the application and the response, it seemed to me that the Applicant had tendered his resignation giving three weeks’ notice.  He had then worked for two weeks and been paid the remainder of his notice in lieu.  This suggested that he had not been dismissed.  Further, the remedy he was seeking was payment of untaken leave entitlements.  As such I resolved to raise with him at conference the prospect that he was in the wrong jurisdiction.

1. However, neither the Respondent nor the Applicant attended the conciliation conference.  My Associate tried to reach both parties by email and telephone without success.  As such, I caused the following email to be sent to the parties on 28 February 2025:

   “Dear Parties,

   Deputy President O'Keeffe notes that neither party attended the conciliation conference scheduled for 3pm Friday, 28 February 2025, resulting in a waste of the Commission's time and resources.

   Parties are advised that they are now directed to provide - by 4.00pm Tuesday 4th March 2025 - their availability for a 90-minute conference within the next three weeks. Failure to comply with this direction may result in the Applicant's application being dismissed with no further opportunity to make submissions.”

2. No response was received from either party.

1. Previous decisions of the FWC have found that the items in s587(1)(a)-(c) do not limit the powers of the FWC to dismiss applications (Samuel v Collins Transport Group Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 5521).  In this instance, the Applicant has failed to attend a conference convened to deal with his application.   He has also failed to respond to correspondence from the FWC which sought to establish his availability for a re-scheduled conference.  In effect, the Applicant has failed to prosecute his claim.

2. In these circumstances, I am persuaded to exercise my powers under s587 to dismiss the application.  An order to that effect will issue.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR785017>