John Margaris v Pharmaceutical Research Associates Pty Limited (“Pra P/L”), Icon Clinical Research Pty Ltd (“Icon”)
[2022] FWC 1260
•24 MAY 2022
| [2022] FWC 1260 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
John Margaris
v
Pharmaceutical Research Associates Pty Limited (“PRA P/L”), Icon Clinical Research Pty Ltd (“ICON”)
(U2022/4722)
| COMMISSIONER O’NEILL | MELBOURNE, 24 MAY 2022 |
Application for relief from unfair dismissal – incomplete application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.
On 23 April 2022, Mr John Margaris made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).
The application form filed by Mr Margaris was incomplete in that he provided two businesses (Pharmaceutical Research Associates Pty Limited (“PRA P/L”) and Clinical Research Pty Ltd (“ICON”) as respondents to the application. The application form submitted also provided contact details for an unrelated party in place of the respondent contact details.
On 27 April 2022, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Margaris’ listed representative, Peter Slater, on his nominated telephone number to request the missing details but he did not answer. Mr Slater returned the call later that same day. He confirmed that the contact details on the application were for an unrelated party. Mr Slater was advised that an application for Unfair Dismissal may only be made against a single respondent. He undertook to send details of the single respondent and the correct contact details. Mr Slater was also advised during this call that the application was received outside the 21-day timeframe for lodgement.
Later that day, the Commission contacted Mr Margaris directly on his nominated telephone number for payment of the application fee. Mr Margaris provided payment and was also advised that the application was incomplete as he or his representative were required to nominate a single respondent and provide the correct contact information for that respondent. Mr Margaris was also advised that the application was received outside the 21 day timeframe for lodgement and provided information on the procedure for such lodgements.
Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Margaris’s nominated email address advising that he needed to provide further details as the application was incomplete and that a single respondent would need to be identified and contact information for that respondent provided. That correspondence also advised that if the required information was not provided within 14 days, the application may be dismissed. This email correspondence was also sent to Mr Margaris’ representative, Mr Slater, on his nominated email address.
As the required information was not received, on 10 May 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Margaris on his nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left advising Mr Margaris that the application was still incomplete as the respondent information was still outstanding and requesting that he or his representative urgently contact the Commission to provide that information. Mr Margaris was also advised that as per the email correspondence if the required information was not received by 11 May 2022 the matter may be dismissed.
An attempt to call Mr Slater, Mr Margaris’ representative, was also made on 10 May 2022. Mr Slater did not answer and there was no facility to leave a voicemail.
Later that day Mr Slater emailed the Commission in relation to the matter. Mr Slater indicated that he was suffering from a medical condition that had prevented him from attending to the matter. Mr Slater indicated that he would “endeavour to address the matters raised during our recent telephone conversation over the next couple of days”.
On Friday 13 May, Mr Slater provided a further email to the Commission in relation to the matter. In this email Mr Slater assured that “I anticipate being able to contact you and replying to your recent queries early next week”. The required information in relation to the respondent in the matter and contact information for such respondent were not provided.
To date, no further communication has been received and neither Mr Margaris nor Mr Slater have provided the necessary details as requested.
Section 587(1) of the FW 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 prospect of success.
In these circumstances, I have determined that the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act.
As such, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An order to this effect will be issued shortly.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR741879>
0
0
0