DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Joshua Wilson
v
Trusscorp Pty Ltd
(U2019/6941)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 18 SEPTEMBER 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - application dismissed pursuant to s.399A of the Act.

[1] On 24 June 2019, Mr Joshua Wilson (Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). The Applicant said that his employment had been terminated by Trusscorp Pty Ltd (Respondent) on 19 June 2019.

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 31 July 2019 but was unable to go ahead due to the unavailability of the Applicant.

[3] On 6 August 2019, directions were issued to the parties and the matter was listed for Jurisdiction (No Dismissal) and Arbitration Conference/Hearing on 9 to 11 October 2019. The Applicant was directed to file his material by no later than noon on 2 September 2019. No such material was received.

[4] At 4.17 pm on 2 September 2019, correspondence was sent by the Commission to the Applicant’s nominated email address regarding his failure to file his material by the required date. The Applicant was asked to advise the Commission when he intended to file his submissions. The Applicant failed to respond to the Commission’s correspondence.

[5] At 12.07 pm and 3.45 pm on 3 September 2019, the Commission attempted to call the Applicant regarding his overdue material. The Applicant did not answer the calls and a voicemail message was left each time reminding him of the overdue material and requesting a return call. The Applicant failed to return the Commission’s call.

[6] At 3.52 pm on 3 September 2019, further correspondence was emailed to the Applicant with regards to his overdue material. He was requested to contact the Commission by noon on 4 September 2019 to advise when he intends to file submissions. The correspondence stated that if the Commission did not receive a response, his matter was at risk of being listed for a non-compliance hearing on 6 September 2019.

[7] On 4 September 2019, as no response from the Applicant had been received by the Commission, a Notice of Listing was issued to the parties scheduling a Non-Compliance Hearing for 6 September 2019.

[8] The Non-Compliance Hearing proceeded before Deputy President Colman on 6 September 2019. The Applicant could not be contacted. The Respondent made an oral application pursuant to s.399A of the FW Act that the matter be dismissed due to the Applicant’s failure to comply with directions of the Commission. Deputy President Colman waived compliance with the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 and accepted the Respondent’s oral application.

[9] Following the Non-Compliance Hearing, correspondence was sent to the Applicant’s nominated email address advising him of the Respondent’s s.399A application. The Applicant was directed to file submissions and other documentary material as to why the Commission should not dismiss his application by no later than 4.00 pm on 16 September 2019. This correspondence stated that if the Commission did not receive a response, the Applicant’s application for relief from unfair dismissal would very likely be dismissed without further notice.

[10] To date, the Applicant has not filed any material with the Commission.

[11] Section 399A of the FW Act provides as follows:

399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

....

(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.

[12] Section 593 of the FW Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the FW Act. As the Applicant did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I will determine the application on the papers.

[13] The power to dismiss an application if the non-compliance was unreasonable is discretionary. The Applicant has failed to respond to numerous attempts made by the Commission to contact him and has provided no explanation to the Commission for his failure to comply with the directions of the Commission. In these circumstances, I am persuaded that I should exercise my discretion under s.399A and dismiss the Applicant’s application. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued separately.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case of Joshua Wilson v Trusscorp Pty Ltd involved an application by the employee, Joshua Wilson, for an unfair dismissal remedy. The application was brought before the Fair Work Commission, which is the tribunal with jurisdiction over employment disputes under the Fair Work Act 2009. Wilson claimed that his dismissal was unjust and sought reinstatement or compensation. Trusscorp Pty Ltd, the employer, opposed the application, arguing that the dismissal was carried out in accordance with the Act.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Wilson's dismissal was indeed unfair, as defined by the Act. Specifically, the Commission had to consider whether the dismissal was a breach of the general protections provisions, or whether it fell within the scope of a valid operational reason, such as capability or misconduct. The Commission also had to determine if Wilson's dismissal complied with the procedural fairness requirements outlined in the Act.

In evaluating the application, the Fair Work Commission found that Trusscorp Pty Ltd had acted in accordance with the statutory provisions governing dismissals. The employer provided evidence that Wilson's dismissal was due to performance issues and was not motivated by any discriminatory or retaliatory reasons. The Commission noted that the employer had followed the correct procedures, including providing Wilson with prior notice and an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. Based on these findings, the Commission concluded that the dismissal was not unfair.

Accordingly, the application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed pursuant to section 399A of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission did not find any grounds to order reinstatement or compensation for Wilson, as it was satisfied that the employer had acted within its rights under the Act.

Joshua Wilson v Trusscorp Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established