James Baghous v TTM Engineering

[2020] FWC 5562

[2020] FWC 5562

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

James Baghous
v
TTM Engineering
(U2020/12483)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI SYDNEY, 20 OCTOBER 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 17 September 2020, James Baghous lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Baghous submitted that his dismissal took effect on 24 July 2020. Accordingly, it appeared that Mr Baghous lodged his application more than 21 days after his dismissal took effect.

[1] On 7 October 2020, my chambers sent correspondence to Mr Baghous about the requirement to obtain an extension of time for his application to be validly lodged. I directed him to respond by 5:00 pm on 12 October 2020 in support of obtaining an extension of time in which to validly lodge his application. However, no response was received.

[2] On 13 October 2020, further correspondence was sent to Mr Baghous directing him to provide a response by 4:00pm on 16 October 2020. He was advised that in the absence of a reply his application may be dismissed.

[3] To date, Mr Baghous has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

[4] 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.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), 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) FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

[5] 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).

[6] In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

[7] An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR723663>