Henry Arthur Rogers v D & R Lavis
[2025] FWC 1689
•17 JUNE 2025
| [2025] FWC 1689 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION AND ORDER |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Henry Arthur Rogers
v
D & R Lavis
(U2025/413)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON | SYDNEY, 17 JUNE 2025 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy remedy – dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission’s initiative for want of prosecution.
On 13 January 2025 Mr Henry Arthur Rogers made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
Mr Rogers did not attend a telephone conciliation conference scheduled for 27 February and 1 April 2025.
Commission staff tried to contact Mr Rogers on 1 April, 17 April and 30 April 2025 about this concern. Mr Rogers has not responded to the Commission’s correspondence.
Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative in the early stages of the proceedings for want of prosecution. 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]).
I am satisfied that Mr Rogers has had the opportunity to put a case for consideration on all matters material to the decision to dismiss the application under s.587. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the facility under s.587 can and should be engaged to dismiss Mr Roger’s application. I make the following order:
A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Rogers on 13 January 2025 is dismissed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR788297>
0