Jayden Roberts v Black Rubber Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 1657

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jayden Roberts
v

Black Rubber Pty Ltd

(U2025/4042)

COMMISSIONER HUNT

BRISBANE, 16 JUNE 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

On 2 April 2025, Mr Jayden Roberts made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), alleging that he had been dismissed from his employment with Black Rubber Pty Ltd (the Respondent) and that his dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

The matter was listed for a staff conciliation on 5 May 2025. Mr Roberts did not attend the conciliation despite attempts made by the staff conciliator to contact him. Accordingly, the conciliation was unable to proceed. The staff conciliator then issued correspondence to the parties, requesting that they advise whether they wished the matter to be listed for a further conciliation. No response to this correspondence was received.

The matter was allocated to me on 15 May 2025. On 20 May 2025, I issued directions requiring Mr Roberts to file material in support of his application by 10 June 2025 and notified the parties of a telephone conference to be convened on 23 May 2025. Mr Roberts did not attend the conference despite multiple attempts to contact him. Accordingly, the conference did not proceed.

Mr Roberts failed to file any material by 10 June 2025 in accordance with my directions. Therefore, on 11 June 2025, I caused my chambers to issue correspondence to the parties advising that the matter would be listed for a non-compliance hearing at 10:00am on 16 June 2025 by video using Microsoft Teams. My correspondence informed the parties that if Mr Roberts failed to attend the non-compliance hearing or failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his non-compliance with my directions, his application would be at risk of being dismissed under s.587 of the Act.

Mr Roberts did not join the non-compliance hearing on Microsoft Teams. My Associate made attempts to contact Mr Roberts by telephone for the purpose of the non-compliance hearing, however these attempts were unsuccessful. The non-compliance hearing was therefore vacated.

Section 587 of the Act provides as follows:

“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.”

Mr Roberts has not communicated or corresponded with the Commission since the filing of his application on 2 April 2025. Numerous attempts have been made to engage Mr Roberts in his application to the Commission.

The words, “without limiting when the 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 ss.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

Considering Mr Roberts’ failure to:

a)   attend the staff conciliation on 5 May 2025;
b)   attend the conference before me on 23 May 2025;
c)   file material in accordance with the direction issued by me; and
d)   attend the non-compliance hearing before me on 16 June 2025

I have decided to dismiss Mr Roberts’ application pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act for want of prosecution.

An Order to this effect will be issued with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Jayden Roberts filed an application to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging that his dismissal from employment with Black Rubber Pty Ltd was unfair. The application was made on 2 April 2025. The FWC attempted multiple times to engage with Mr Roberts through conciliation and a telephone conference but he failed to attend or respond to any of these proceedings. Mr Roberts also failed to file any material in support of his application by the deadline set by the FWC. Consequently, the FWC scheduled a non-compliance hearing, which Mr Roberts also failed to attend.

The legal issue before the FWC was whether Mr Roberts' application could be dismissed under section 587 of the Fair Work Act for want of prosecution. The FWC had to consider if Mr Roberts' repeated failure to participate in the proceedings and comply with the FWC's directions constituted sufficient grounds for dismissal of his application. The FWC noted that section 587(1) of the Act grants the FWC broad jurisdiction to dismiss an application for various reasons, including non-compliance with the Act's requirements. Given Mr Roberts' lack of communication and engagement with the FWC since filing his application, the FWC concluded that dismissing the application was warranted.

The FWC determined that Mr Roberts' application should be dismissed under section 587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act, on its own initiative, for want of prosecution. The FWC highlighted that Mr Roberts did not attend the staff conciliation, the telephone conference, or the non-compliance hearing, and he also failed to file the required material. The FWC concluded that Mr Roberts' failure to engage with the proceedings and comply with its directions demonstrated a lack of seriousness in pursuing his application, justifying dismissal. The FWC's decision was based on the absence of any reasonable prospects of success due to Mr Roberts' non-compliance.

An Order dismissing Mr Roberts' application will be issued with this decision. This dismissal is without prejudice to Mr Roberts' right to re-apply if he is able to provide satisfactory explanations for his non-compliance and engage with the FWC's processes in future proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established