Jason Paul Dingle v Tronox Management Pty Ltd (Not Employer but Client)

[2025] FWC 3014

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jason Paul Dingle
v

Tronox Management Pty Ltd (Not Employer But Client)

(U2025/5800)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 9 OCTOBER 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative - application has no reasonable prospects of success.

On 9 May 2025, Mr Jason Paul Dingle made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The application named “Tronox Management Pty Ltd” as the Respondent.

On 20 June 2025 Mr Dingle provided a response as to why there were exceptional circumstances for lodging his application outside the 21 day time limit. In that email Mr Dingle said:-

“My old employer Curtis electrical had made our positions redundant.”

The applicant sought the following outcome from his unfair dismissal application against Tronox Management Pty Ltd:

“…reinstatement to all Tronox sites, or assistance in resolving the matter with Tronox for myself and co-workers.”

It is very important at the beginning of an unfair dismissal claim that the correct employer is identified. An unfair dismissal application can only be lodged against the entity that employed the employee.

On 7 July and 14 July 2025 my Chambers sent correspondence to Mr Dingle raising a concern about whether the correct employer was named in Mr Dingle’s unfair dismissal application. The correspondence invited Mr Dingle to provide submissions about the identity of his employer and the legal basis upon which his unfair dismissal application against Tronox Management Pty Ltd could continue.

Mr Dingle did not respond.

Mr Dingle has been on notice of the likely consequences if he does not provide further information that supports his eligibility to make the application.

Section 587 – General Principles

Each applicant must be given a fair opportunity to show that their application does in fact have some reasonable prospects of success.

Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative in the early stages of the proceedings. Protracted proceedings can be avoided when there is no reasonable prospect of an outcome other than the dismissal of the application.

The power under s.587 should be used with caution, particularly if the matter involves complex questions of fact or law (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [11]-[16] (Bond)). An application should not be dismissed under s.587 unless it is very clear that there are no reasonable prospects of success. As such the power under s.587 is not available if there are disputed facts that could affect the outcome of the proceedings.

Does Mr Dingle’s application have any reasonable prospects of success?

Upon first inspection Mr Dingle’s application did not appear to have any prospects of success.

The information provided by Mr Dingle on his Form F2 application, strongly indicates that he is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because he was not, and does not claim to have been, an employee of Tronox Management Pty Ltd.

I am satisfied that the facility under s.587 can and should be engaged to dismiss Mr Dingle’s application. I make the following order:

A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Jason Paul Dingle on 9 May 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jason Paul Dingle filed an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, naming Tronox Management Pty Ltd as the respondent. The application was made on 9 May 2025. However, there were immediate concerns about whether Tronox Management Pty Ltd was the correct employer, given that Mr Dingle’s previous employer, Curtis Electrical, had made their positions redundant. On 20 June 2025, Mr Dingle provided a response to why there were exceptional circumstances for lodging his application outside the 21-day time limit, but he did not respond to subsequent correspondence from the Commission's chambers regarding the identity of his employer.

The legal issues before the court were whether Mr Dingle was eligible to make an unfair dismissal application against Tronox Management Pty Ltd and whether there were reasonable prospects of success for his application. The key issue was identifying the correct employer, as an unfair dismissal application can only be lodged against the entity that employed the employee. The court examined whether Mr Dingle was, or had been, an employee of Tronox Management Pty Ltd, and if not, whether his application had any reasonable prospects of success. The court was also required to consider whether the application should be dismissed under section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009 if it was clear that there were no reasonable prospects of success.

The Deputy President found that Mr Dingle's application did not appear to have any reasonable prospects of success, as he had not provided sufficient evidence to support that he was, or had been, an employee of Tronox Management Pty Ltd. The Deputy President noted that the power under section 587 should be used with caution, particularly in complex cases, but was satisfied that the application could be dismissed as it was clear there were no reasonable prospects of success. Consequently, the application was dismissed on the Commission's own initiative.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established