Kostas Plias v Ventura Bus Lines T/A Ventura

[2017] FWC 3292

[2017] FWC 3292

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Kostas Plias

v

Ventura Bus Lines T/A Ventura

(U2016/15474)

COMMISSIONER ROE MELBOURNE, 19 JUNE 2017

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

1. On 28 December 2016, an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for remedy from unfair dismissal was lodged by Mr Kostas Plias (the Applicant). The matter was listed for a hearing before me on 12 April 2017.

1. On 11 April 2017, the Applicant’s representative, McDonald Murholme, Barristers and Solicitors, advised the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) that an in principle settlement had been reached and that the Applicant would provide a Notice of discontinuance in due course. Ventura’s representative, Marsh & Maher Lawyers was also copied into this correspondence.

1. The hearing was cancelled. On 1 June 2017, my Associate wrote to the representatives of the parties requesting that a Notice of discontinuance be provided within seven days. The correspondence also advised that if there was no response to the correspondence, then we may dismiss the application.

1. No reply was received.

1. Further correspondence was sent on 13 June 2017, advising the parties that we assume from the lack of any reply to our earlier correspondence, that the matter has settled and therefore if we do not receive a response to this correspondence or explanation as to why the matter should not be closed by 16 June 2017, that a decision will be issued dismissing the application.

1. On 14 June 2017, Ventura’s representative provided a response to the Commission, advising that they were of the understanding that the matter had been attended to by the Applicant and confirmed that the matter did resolve.

1. On 15 June 2017, the Applicant’s representative wrote to the Commission and advised that the parties had reached an in principle agreement however, that they have had difficulty in obtaining a signed terms of settlement from the Applicant. They further advised that they did however understand that the Commission needed to “discontinue the matter” and that they did “not object to” the matter being discontinued.

1. The Commission also corresponded directly with the Applicant to provide him with an opportunity to respond by copying the Applicant into the correspondence of 13 June 2017, 14 June 2017 in response to the response provided by the Respondent’s representative and 15 June 2017 in response to the response provided by the Applicant’s representative, but no response was received.

1. In their response of 15 June 2017, the Applicant’s representative advised that they did not object to “the Commissions’ need to discontinue the matter.” The Commission cannot discontinue a matter under Rule 10 of the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 (the Rules) as implied by the Applicant’s representative above.

1. I am satisfied that the Applicant no longer wishes to pursue this matter and that the matter has been settled.

1. I am also satisfied that given that a settlement has been reached in this matter, the application has no reasonable prospects of success. I therefore dismiss the matter under s.587 of the Act.

1. The matter is dismissed and an Order to this effect is published.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR593797>