Karanveer Singh v Telstra Limited

[2025] FWC 242

[2025] FWC 242

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Karanveer Singh
v

Telstra Limited

(U2024/14835)

COMMISSIONER CRAWFORD SYDNEY, 29 JANUARY 2025

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – non-attendance at conference and several failures to respond to correspondence – application dismissed for want of prosecution.

1. On 10 December 2024, Mr Karanveer Singh filed an unfair dismissal application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) following his dismissal by Telstra Limited on 9 December 2024.

1. The Fair Work Commission (Commission) scheduled a conciliation conference for 10 January 2025 which Mr Singh did not attend. Mr Singh did not make any attempts to contact the Commission to explain his absence.

1. Given Mr Singh’s non-attendance at the conciliation, an email was sent from my chambers to ascertain whether Mr Singh wished to discontinue the application. Mr Singh did not provide a response. Further correspondence was then sent indicating that I intended to dismiss the application pursuant to s.587 of the FW Act for want of prosecution, absent any concerns being raised by Mr Singh. No response was received.

1. The Commission is not required to “persevere with an application in circumstances where the applicant’s conduct clearly demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in proceedings commenced at his or her initiative.”[1] Section 587 of the FW Act provides the Commission with the power to dismiss an application if it is clear that the applicant has stopped “pursing or participating in the proceedings they commenced.”[2] Section 587(3)(a) allows the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative, provided that in doing so, the applicant was afforded procedural fairness.[3]

1. Given Mr Singh’s non-responsiveness to emails sent from chambers to his nominated email address, I am satisfied that Mr Singh has had the opportunity to raise any objections to the application being dismissed.

1. In circumstances where Mr Singh did not attend a conciliation before a Commission staff member and has not responded to further attempts to contact him, I am satisfied that Mr Singh has demonstrated that he does not intend to prosecute his application.

1. For these reasons, I have decided to dismiss Mr Singh’s application on my own initiative for want of prosecution.

1. I have separately made an order to this effect (PR783705).

COMMISSIONER

[1] Viavattene v Health Care Australia[2013] FWCFB 2532 at [39].

[2] O’Connor v Jindalee Aged Care Residence[2024] FWC 2550 at [5].

[3] Ibid at [6].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR783703>