Jodie Sage v Tommy Bahama Ltd

[2019] FWC 2323

[2019] FWC 2323

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jodie Sage
v
Tommy Bahama Ltd
(U2019/1057)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN SYDNEY, 8 APRIL 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 3 February 2019, Ms Jodie Sage made an application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a remedy in respect of her alleged unfair dismissal by Tommy Bahama Ltd (Tommy Bahama).

[2] The application was initially listed for telephone conciliation before a Fair Work Commission conciliator on 4 March 2019. Tommy Bahama sought and was granted an adjournment of the conciliation and it was relisted for 8 March 2019. The conciliation could not take place as Ms Sage was unable to be contacted at that time.

[3] On 18 March 2019 correspondence was sent to Ms Sage requesting that she contact my chambers by 25 March 2019 to advise whether or not she wished to proceed with her application. No response from Ms Sage was received.

[4] On 1 April 2019, further correspondence was sent to Miss Sage directing her to provide a response by 4:00pm on 4 April 2019. She was advised that in the absence of a reply her application may be dismissed.

[5] Final attempts were made to contact Ms Sage by telephone on 5 April 2019.

[6] To date, Ms Sage has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

[7] Section 587 of the Act provides:

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), 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) FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

[8] The words, “Without limiting when 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 s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

[9] In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

[10] An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR706643>