Jonathan Lett v Sydney Appliance Sales
[2022] FWC 833
•18 MAY 2022
| [2022] FWC 833 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Jonathan Lett
v
Sydney Appliance Sales
(U2022/2986)
| COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 18 MAY 2022 |
Application for relief from unfair dismissal – incomplete application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.
On 10 March 2022, Mr Jonathan Lett 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 Lett was incomplete in that he did not provide the effective date of dismissal at question 1.3 of the Form F2. This information enables the Commission to determine whether the applicant has satisfied the minimum employment period criterion for a s.394 claim, and if the Form F2 was lodged within the prescribed 21-day timeframe.
On 10 March 2022, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Lett on his nominated telephone number to request the missing details. The phone call was unanswered. The mobile service provider advised the recipient is unavailable then the call terminated. Hence, no voicemail messages could be left.
Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Lett’s nominated email address advising that he provide further details as the application was incomplete in that the specific date of dismissal was missing. That correspondence also advised that if the outstanding information was not provided within 14 days, the application may be dismissed.
As the required information was not received, on 24 March 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Lett on his nominated telephone number. The phone call was unanswered. The mobile service provider advised the recipient is unavailable then the call terminated. Hence, no voicemail messages could be left.
On 5 April 2022, the Commission made a final attempt to contact Mr Lett. However, the phone call was again unanswered. The mobile service provider advised the recipient is unavailable then the call terminated. Hence, no voicemail messages could be left.
Later that day, the Commission again forwarded the emailed correspondence from 10 March 2022 to Mr Lett’s nominated email address.
To date, no response has been received and Mr Lett has not 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
<PR740260>
0
0
0