Lillian Panapa-Williams v Asko Appliances (Aust.) Pty. Ltd
[2024] FWC 3228
•22 NOVEMBER 2024
| [2024] FWC 3228 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Lillian Panapa-Williams
v
Asko Appliances (Aust.) Pty. Ltd.
(U2024/10914)
| COMMISSIONER MIRABELLA | MELBOURNE, 22 NOVEMBER 2024 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy
On 15 September 2024, Ms Lilian Panapa-Williams (the Applicant) filed an application for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) in the Fair Work Commission (Commission).
The Applicant commenced employment with Asko Appliances (Aust.) Pty. Ltd. on May/June 2022 and it is not disputed that she was dismissed on 11 September 2024.
This matter was allocated to me on 18 October 2024 for case management. On 21 October 2024 this matter was listed for mention/conference on 25 October 2024.
Later that day, parties were emailed a notice of listing/directions document which required The Applicant to file submissions and evidence by 4:00pm Monday 4 November 2024. The document included the following note:
“Non-compliance: The Commissioner will not accept material that is filed late unless an extension has been granted by the Commissioner before it was due. Requests for an extension of time must be made in writing in a timely manner and specify substantial grounds. Parties must not assume an extension will be granted.”
The Applicant then attended the mention/conference on 25 October 2024 where she advised that she did not take issue with the dates for filing provided in the directions.
The Applicant did not file her submissions and evidence by the deadline of 4 November 2024.
On 8 November 2024, my associate emailed the Applicant advising that non-compliance with the directions may lead to dismissal of the application pursuant to s.587(1)(c) on the basis that the application has no reasonable prospect of success and requested she file her submissions by 11 November 2024.
The Applicant did not respond to my request. On 18 November 2024, my associate sent an email to the Applicant reiterating the requirement to file submissions and evidence, drawing her attention to sections 587 and 399A of the Act, advising that non-compliance with the directions has the potential to impact on the continuation of proceedings and directing the Applicant to seek leave to file her materials outside the deadline and to provide an explanation for her non-compliance. A response to the email was sought by 4:00pm on 20 November 2024. The email advised that if no response was received, the application may be dismissed.
The Applicant again did not contact chambers by the deadline. Not having any communication whatsoever from the Applicant, I instructed my associate to call the Applicant with the objective of urging her to provide written responses to previous emails. My associate called her on the afternoon of 20 November 2024 where she did not answer. At the time of writing, the Applicant has not engaged with the Commission since that telephone call.
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.
Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3-2, see section 399A.
(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773, or an application under section 527F that does not consist solely of an application for a stop sexual harassment order, 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.”
I consider that as the Applicant has failed to prosecute her application, her application has no reasonable prospects of success. In the circumstances, the appropriate course is to dismiss the application under s.587 of the Act. The application is dismissed.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR781532>
0
0
0