Jerome Philpott v Assetlink Services (15) Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 3050

[2022] FWC 3050

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jerome Philpott
v

Assetlink Services (15) Pty Ltd

(U2022/9358)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BOYCE SYDNEY, 17 NOVEMBER 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

Background

1. On 19 September 2022, Mr Jerome Philpott (Applicant) filed an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) with the Fair Work Commission (Commission), being an application for an unfair dismissal remedy (Application). Mr Philpott commenced employment with Assetlink Services (15) Pty Ltd (Respondent) on 2 April 2019 and was dismissed on 30 August 2022.

1. On 21 September 2022, the matter was allocated to the Commission’s staff conciliation unit. On 2 October 2022, a notice of listing was dispatched to the parties regarding the staff conciliation on 27 October 2022. The staff conciliation was unsuccessful.

1. The matter was allocated to my Chambers on 1 November 2022. A notice of listing and directions were issued to the parties on 1 November 2022, with the matter listed for Hearing to deal with the Application on 14 December 2022.

1. Orders [2] of the Directions issued 1 November 2022 read as follows:

“[2]       By 4.00pm AEDT on Tuesday, 15 November 2022, the Applicant must file with the Commission and serve on the Respondent an outline of submissions, witness statements, and any documents in support of their application.”

1. Chambers received no correspondence from the Applicant in compliance with Order [2].

1. On Wednesday, 16 November 2022, the Applicant was sent an email (Show Cause Email) noting that the Applicant had failed to comply with directions, and issuing further a direction for the Applicant to:

“file with the Commission, and serve on the Respondent, written submissions regarding their non-compliance with directions. Further, the Applicant is to make submissions as to why this matter should not be dismissed. The Applicant is to comply with this Direction by no later than 4:00pm AEDT Today, 16 November 2022.”

1. The Applicant was notified in the Show Cause Email that “If the Applicant does not comply with Order [1] above, or if the Deputy President is not satisfied by the Applicant’s submissions, the matter may be dismissed without further notice.”

Legislative Provisions

“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.”

1. In Rebecca Tomas v Symbian Health [2011] FWA 5458, Commissioner Gooley stated the following with respect to the operation of s.587:

“[57] Section 587 gives Fair Work Australia the power to dismiss a matter. Section 587(a), (b) and do not limit Fair Work Australia's power to dismiss matters for other reasons.

[58] In determining unfair dismissal applications Fair Work Australia is required to afford a fair go all round to both employers and employees. Further, Fair Work Australia must perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is fair and just and must take into account equity, good conscience and the merits of the matter.”[1]

Consideration

1. As the Applicant has made no attempt to comply with directions to file and serve submissions and evidence prosecuting his case, or to explain his non-compliance with directions, I have decided to dismiss his Application.

1. In accordance with the principle of a fair go all round to both employers and employees, I find that the Applicant’s repeated non-compliance with directions is wholly unexplained. Further, in taking into account fairness, justice, equity and good conscience, I find that the Applicant has been provided with repeated opportunities to prosecute his case, and/or contact the Commission to explain his non-compliance, but has instead (including by his silence) expressed a clear disinterest in process, procedure and the prosecution of his own case. Pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act, the Application is dismissed for want of prosecution. An Order dismissing the Application will be published contemporaneously with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] See McLeod v Kulgera Trading Company Pty Ltd [2014] FWC 2112, [9].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR748003>