Jasmine Radburn v Matthew Bremerkamp, Lakeside Kiosk & Cafe

[2023] FWC 2239

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.372—General protections

Jasmine Radburn
v

Matthew Bremerkamp, Lakeside Kiosk & Cafe

(C2023/3879)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CROSS

SYDNEY, 5 SEPTEMBER 2023

Application to deal with other contraventions disputes

This matter was listed for conference at 09:00 a.m. on 14 August 2023.

A notice of listing emailed to the applicant and respondent on the 09 August 2023.

On 10 August 2023, the applicant emailed Chambers requesting to postpone the matter.

This matter was re listed for Mention/and or directions at 01.00 p.m. on 30 August 2023.

A notice of listing was emailed to the applicant and respondent on the 28 August 2023.

On 29 August 2023, the Commission contacted the parties by way of email requesting confirmation of the participants who will be joining the conference listed for 30 August 2023.

On 30 August 2023, the applicant did not join the conference and was uncontactable.

On 30 August 2023, the Commission emailed the applicant requiring an explanation by way of evidence as to its non – attendance. The applicant was advised that a failure to provide an explanation in writing or if the explanation is inadequate, the matter may be closed for a failure of want of prosecution.

On 01 September 2023, the Commission sent a follow up email to the applicant requiring a response to its non-compliance by 01:00pm or the matter will be dismissed pursuant to s 587 FW Act.

The applicant failed to provide an explanation for its non-attendance.

In the circumstances it is my decision that this application is now dismissed for want of prosecution.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jasmine Radburn has applied to the Fair Work Commission to deal with contraventions arising from her employment with Matthew Bremerkamp, trading as Lakeside Kiosk & Cafe. The Commission was required to determine whether the application could proceed, given Ms Radburn's failure to attend a scheduled conference and provide an explanation for her absence. This failure to attend and provide an explanation led to the application being dismissed for want of prosecution.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether the application should be dismissed due to Ms Radburn's non-attendance and failure to provide an explanation as required. The Commission considered the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly section 587, which allows for the dismissal of a matter if a party fails to comply with an order or requirement of the Commission. The Commission's role was to assess whether Ms Radburn's absence was justified and whether she provided a satisfactory explanation, or if her failure to do so warranted dismissal of the application.

In its decision, the Commission noted that Ms Radburn had not only failed to attend the scheduled conference but also did not respond to subsequent communications from the Commission requesting an explanation for her non-attendance. The Commission found that without an adequate explanation, Ms Radburn's failure to participate in the proceedings amounted to a want of prosecution. Consequently, the application was dismissed as per section 587 of the Fair Work Act.

This decision underscores the importance of compliance with procedural requirements in Fair Work Commission proceedings. The Commission's dismissal of the application highlights that failure to attend required conferences and provide necessary explanations can result in the termination of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established