| [2023] FWC 345 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Kaylee Hines
v
Redcape Hotel Group Pty Ltd
(U2022/11577)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 14 FEBRUARY 2023 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.
Kaylee Hines (the applicant) was employed by Redcape Hotel Group Pty Ltd (the respondent) from the 26th of March 2018 until she resigned on the 28th of November 2022.
On the 6th of December 2022, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
The legal business name nominated by the respondent in their F3 – Employer’s Response Form in this matter was Redcape Hotel Group.
On the 20th of January 2023, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the legal business name discrepancy and she was required to respond by the 27th of January 2023. No response was received at this time.
Further correspondence was sent to the applicant on the 30th of January 2023 and she was required to respond by 5:00pm the 2nd of February 2023. It was in this correspondence that the applicant was advised her application would be dismissed without any notice if no response was received.
To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence sent by my Chambers.
Section 587 of the Act provides:
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 prospects of success.
(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:
(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or
(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.
(3) FWC may dismiss an application:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.
The words, “Without limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act, establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).
In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.
An order to that effect will issue with this decision.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR750388>
- AGLC
- Kaylee Hines v Redcape Hotel Group Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 345
- Case
- [2023] FWC 345
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue before the Fair Work Commission was whether Hines' failure to respond to correspondence regarding a discrepancy in the respondent's legal business name warranted the dismissal of her application for unfair dismissal. The Commission had to consider whether it had the jurisdiction to dismiss the application and, if so, whether it was appropriate to do so in the circumstances. The Commission also had to determine whether the application had any reasonable prospects of success, given Hines' failure to respond to correspondence.
The Commission concluded that it had the jurisdiction to dismiss Hines' application for unfair dismissal for want of prosecution under s.587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission noted that s.587(1) of the Act established that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application was not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c). The Commission also found that Hines' failure to respond to correspondence regarding the discrepancy in the respondent's legal business name meant that the application had no reasonable prospects of success. Accordingly, the Commission decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution.
The Fair Work Commission dismissed Kaylee Hines' application for unfair dismissal for want of prosecution. The Commission found that it had the jurisdiction to dismiss the application under s.587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 and that Hines' failure to respond to correspondence regarding a discrepancy in the respondent's legal business name meant that the application had no reasonable prospects of success. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.