Jonathan Lett v Sydney Appliance Sales Summary

[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

In the case of Jonathan Lett v Sydney Appliance Sales, the applicant, Mr Jonathan Lett, sought relief for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The respondent was Sydney Appliance Sales. The application was dismissed on 18 May 2022 by Commissioner Bissett in Melbourne, following a series of attempts by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) to obtain missing information from Mr Lett. The primary legal issue before the Commissioner was whether the application was made in accordance with the Act, specifically whether the application was complete as required by the relevant forms and procedures.

The Commissioner found that the application was incomplete because Mr Lett did not provide the effective date of dismissal, which is a critical piece of information for the FWC to determine the eligibility of the application under the Act. Despite multiple attempts by the FWC to contact Mr Lett via phone and email to request the missing information, no response was received. The Commissioner noted that the statutory requirements for lodging a complete application were not met, and as such, the application did not comply with the Act. Under s.587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act, the FWC has the discretion to dismiss applications that are not made in accordance with the Act. Given that Mr Lett failed to provide the necessary information despite multiple requests, the Commissioner dismissed the application on the basis that it was not made in accordance with the Act.

The final orders of the Commission were that the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act due to the incomplete nature of the application. An order to this effect was issued shortly after the decision was rendered.

Jonathan Lett v Sydney Appliance Sales

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established