| [2023] FWC 3368 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Hadrien Pirmez
v
The Trustee For Global Traffic Equipment Trust
(U2023/10380)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 15 DECEMBER 2023 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy
Hadrien Pirmez (the Applicant) was employed by The Trustee For Global Traffic Equipment Trust (the Respondent) from 28 March 2023 until he was dismissed on 13 October 2023.
On 22 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 Respondent raised an objection in the F3 – Employer’s Response Form stating that the Applicant does not meet the minimum employment period.
On 29 November 2023, correspondence was sent to the Applicant in relation to the jurisdictional issue mentioned above and he was required to respond by 7 December 2023. No response was received at this time.
Further correspondence was sent to the Applicant on 8 December 2023 and he was required to respond by 5:00pm on 13 December 2023. It was in this correspondence that the Applicant was advised his 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
<PR769471>
- AGLC
- Hadrien Pirmez v The Trustee for Global Traffic Equipment Trust [2023] FWC 3368
- Case
- [2023] FWC 3368
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue for the Commission was whether Pirmez's application should be dismissed due to his failure to respond to multiple correspondences regarding the jurisdictional matter. The Commission considered section 587 of the Act, which grants the Commission the authority to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act, is frivolous or vexatious, or has no reasonable prospects of success. Additionally, the Commission noted the power to dismiss an application for want of prosecution. The Commission had sent Pirmez two correspondences, the first on 29 November 2023 and the second on 8 December 2023, requiring him to respond by specific dates. Pirmez failed to respond to either correspondence, leading the Commission to conclude that the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Vice President found that the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution under section 587(3)(a) of the Act. The Commission exercised its discretion to dismiss the application due to Pirmez's failure to respond to correspondences sent by the Commission's Chambers. This dismissal was made on the basis that the application was not being actively pursued by the Applicant, as required by the Act.
The final orders of the Commission will reflect the dismissal of the application for unfair dismissal remedy for want of prosecution. This decision underscores the importance of timely responses to jurisdictional issues raised by the Commission in employment disputes under the Fair Work Act.
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.