Krista Jean Te Puke v Duclene Pty Ltd
[2023] FWC 1366
•9 JUNE 2023
| [2023] FWC 1366 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Krista Jean Te Puke
v
Duclene Pty Ltd
(U2023/2687)
| COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER | PERTH, 9 JUNE 2023 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy
This matter involves an application made by Ms Krista Jean Te Puke (the Applicant) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. The Respondent is Duclene Pty Ltd (the Respondent).
Background – Non-Compliance
It appears the matter was lodged outside of the 21-day timeframe required under the Act.
Correspondence was sent to the parties on 25 May 2023 confirming that the matter was listed for Hearing to determine the out of time issue. This correspondence included directions for the parties to file materials.
The Applicant was directed to provide written materials in relation to the jurisdictional issue by 2 June 2023.
The Applicant emailed my Chambers, on Wednesday 31 May 2023, seeking an update on the matter.
My associate replied to the Applicant, noting that the matter had been listed for Hearing and that the Applicant was required to file materials by Friday, 2 June 2023. The original Notice of Listing with directions was attached this email response.
The Applicant did not file materials in compliance with the directions.
A follow up letter was emailed to the Applicant on 7 June 2023, regarding the failure to comply with the Commission’s direction and directing that the materials be filed by 12:00PM on 8 June 2023.
The letter advised that a further failure to comply with the Commission’s direction could be grounds for the application to be dismissed.
The email accompanying the letter encouraged the Applicant to reach out if they were experiencing difficulties responding.
No materials were received by the deadline on 8 June 2023.
Subsequently, I instructed my associate to send the Applicant one final notice to comply.
This correspondence outlined, in detail, the attempts made to contact the Applicant and the repeated non-compliance. This correspondence highlighted that the file was at risk of closure.
The Applicant was again directed to comply with the original directions and to show cause as to why the application should not be dismissed by 3:00PM (AWST), 9 June 2023.
On 9 June 2023, approximately three hours before the final deadline to comply, my associate sent a reminder email to the Applicant.
This email reminded the Applicant of the direction to comply and file their materials. This email also reiterated that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the application. This email, again, encouraged the Applicant to reach out if they were experiencing difficulties responding.
As of the date and time of this Decision, approximately two hours after the final deadline to comply, no further communication from the Applicant has been received.
Legislation
Section 577 of the Act obliges the Commission to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is fair, just and is quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities and is open and transparent and promotes harmonious and cooperative workplace relations.
Further, section 578 of the Act relevantly requires that in performing functions or exercising powers in relation to a matter the Commission must take into account the objects of the relevant Part of the Act.
A section 394 application falls under Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal of the Act.
The Objects of Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal are prescribed in section 381 of the Act. These Objects include the establishment of procedures dealing with unfair dismissal that are quick, flexible, and informal and address the needs of employers and employees and involve procedures and remedies that ensure a “fair go all around” is accorded to both the employer and employee concerned.
Section 587(3) of the Act empowers the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative.
Section 587(3) of the Act reads 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 prospects of success.
(2)Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the 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) The FWC may dismiss an application:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.”
Consideration
In this case, the Applicant has failed to comply with the Commission’s directions and was on notice that non-compliance would be grounds for the application to be dismissed.
The Applicant has been provided three opportunities, and has been reminded repeatedly, to comply with the directions of the Commission.
The Applicant has not attempted to contact my Chambers or comply with the directions.
The Applicant, in the circumstances here, has been given a fair go.
The Respondent is also entitled to a fair go, including having the claim made against them determined within a reasonable time.
The Commission has afforded the Applicant several opportunities to advance her position in this matter despite her repeated non-compliance.
Unfortunately, the Applicant has repeatedly failed to comply with directions of the Commission.
The Applicant has never sought or requested an extension from the Commission nor provided reasonable explanation for the continued non-compliance.
Conclusion
Consequently, my decision is that this application for an unfair dismissal remedy should now be dismissed on the initiative of the Commission under section 587(3) of the Act.
An Order to this effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.[1]
COMMISSIONER
[1] [PR762978].
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR762977>
0
0
0