Lee Broadbridge v Logistick WA Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 285

[2022] FWC 285

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Lee Broadbridge
v

Logistick WA Pty Ltd

(U2021/11224)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI SYDNEY, 14 FEBRUARY 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

1. On 6 December 2021, Lee Broadbridge filed an application with the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) in relation to his employment with Logistick WA Pty Ltd (the respondent).

1. On 9 December 2021, the respondent raised a jurisdictional objection to this application on the basis that Mr Broadbridge did not complete the minimum employment period.

1. On 12 January 2022, my chambers sent correspondence to Mr Broadbridge and his representative, identifying the respondent’s objection and directing him to provide a statement by 19 January 2022 in support of having completed the minimum employment period, if he believed he had.

1. On 19 January 2022, Mr Broadbridge’s representative advised my chambers that he intended to respond by 21 or 24 January 2022.

1. In the afternoon of 24 January 2022, Mr Broadbridge’s representative advised my chambers that he had not been able to contact Mr Broadbridge since 20 January 2022.

1. On 25 January 2022, my chambers sent correspondence to Mr Broadbridge and his representative, indicating that I intended to dismiss this application if he did not lodge the relevant material by 27 January 2022.

1. In the afternoon of 27 January 2022, Mr Broadbridge’s representative advised my chambers that Mr Broadbridge had not returned his telephone calls or responded to his text messages.

1. To date, the Commission has not received any further correspondence from either Mr Broadbridge or his representative.

1. 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.

1. The words, ‘[w]ithout 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 ss.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

1. In the circumstances, I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

1. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR738308>