Jessie Merekahu Peawini Pahina v Compass Group T/A Ess Compass Group

[2023] FWC 1529

[2023] FWC 1529

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.739—Dispute resolution

Jessie Merekahu Peawini Pahina
v

Compass Group T/A Ess Compass Group

(C2023/2249)

COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER PERTH, 26 JUNE 2023

Alleged dispute about any matters arising under the enterprise agreement and the NES;[s186(6)]

1. This matter involves an application made by Ms Jessie Merekahu Peawini Pahina (the Applicant) under section 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) regarding a dispute arising under an enterprise agreement. The Respondent is Compass Group (the Respondent).

Background – Non-Compliance

1. The matter was subject to a conference on 24 May 2023. In the conference, jurisdictional issues identified in the application were raised with the parties.

1. Correspondence was sent to the parties on 25 May 2023, confirming directions to deal with the jurisdictional issue.

1. The Applicant was directed to provide written materials in relation to the jurisdictional issue by 16 June 2023.

1. The Applicant did not file materials in compliance with the directions.

1. A follow up letter was emailed to the Applicant, on 21 June 2023, regarding the failure to comply with the Commission’s direction and directing that the materials be filed by 12:00PM on 22 June 2023.

1. The letter advised that a further failure to comply with the Commission’s direction could be grounds for the application to be dismissed.

1. The email accompanying the letter encouraged the Applicant to reach out if they were experiencing difficulties responding.

1. No materials were received by the deadline on 22 June 2023.

1. Subsequently, I instructed my associate to send the Applicant one final notice to comply.

1. This correspondence outlined, in detail, the attempts made to contact the Applicant and the repeated non-compliance. This correspondence highlighted that the file was at risk of closure.

1. The Applicant was again directed to comply with the original directions and to show cause as to why the application should not be dismissed by 1:00PM, 26 June 2023.

1. On 26 June 2023, approximately two hours before the final deadline to comply, my associate sent a reminder email to the Applicant.

1. This email reminded the Applicant of the direction to comply and file their materials. This email also reiterated that failure to comply would result in the closure of the application.

1. As of the date and time of this Decision, no further communication from the Applicant has been received.

Legislation

1. Section 577 of the Act obliges the Commission to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is fair, just and is quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities and is open and transparent and promotes harmonious and cooperative workplace relations.

1. Further, section 578 of the Act relevantly requires that in performing functions or exercising powers in relation to a matter the Commission must take into account the objects of the relevant Part of the Act.

1. Section 587(3) of the Act empowers the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative. Section 587(3) of the Act reads 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. 

(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.”

Consideration

1. In this case, the Applicant has failed to comply with the Commission’s directions and was on notice that non-compliance would be grounds for the application to be dismissed.

1. The Applicant has been provided three opportunities, and has been reminded repeatedly, to comply with the directions of the Commission.

1. The Applicant has not attempted to contact my Chambers or comply with the directions.

1. The Applicant, in the circumstances here, has been given a fair go.

1. The Respondent is also entitled to a fair go, including having the claim made against them determined within a reasonable time. The Respondent has, at all times, complied with the requests and directions of the Commission, despite the Applicant’s unwillingness to advance their own claim.

1. The Commission has afforded the Applicant several opportunities to advance her position in this matter despite her repeated non-compliance.

1. Unfortunately, the Applicant has repeatedly failed to comply with directions of the Commission.

1. The Applicant has never sought or requested an extension from the Commission nor provided reasonable explanation for the continued non-compliance.

Conclusion

1. Consequently, my decision is that this application for an unfair dismissal remedy should now be dismissed on the initiative of the Commission under section 587(3) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.[1]

COMMISSIONER

[1] [PR763599].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR763598>