Maja Redzepovic v Community Restorative Centre Inc

[2014] FWC 487

[2014] FWC 487

The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 20 January 2013.

The paragraph numbering has now been corrected.

Katrina Alviano

Associate to Deputy President Gooley

Dated: 21 January 2013

[2014] FWC 487

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Maja Redzepovic
v
Community Restorative Centre Inc
(U2013/2450)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY MELBOURNE, 20 JANUARY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal dismissed.

[1] On 23 July 2013, Ms Maja Redzepovic made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Ms Redzepovic’s employment had been terminated by Community Restorative Centre Inc on 3 July 2013.

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 30 August 2013 however it could not take place. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] Ms Redzepovic was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material she wished to rely on by noon, on 9 December 2013.

[4] Ms Redzepovic did not comply with this direction and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before Commissioner Roe on 20 December 2013.

[5] Ms Redzepovic did not attend the non compliance hearing. Community Restorative Centre Inc made an oral application, pursuant to s.399A of the Act, that the matter be dismissed as Ms Redzepovic had failed to comply with the direction of the Fair Work Commission (the Commission). Commissioner Roe waived compliance with the Fair Work Rules 2009 and accepted Community Restorative Centre Inc’s oral application.

[6] On 20 December 2013, Ms Redzepovic was sent correspondence informing her of the Respondent’s s.399A application. Ms Redzepovic was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of the application by close of business, on 27 December 2013. Ms Redzepovic was advised that if she failed to comply with this direction, her application would be dismissed.

[7] Ms Redzepovic did not file any material with the Commission.

[8] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

(c) failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded.

....

(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.

[9] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[10] As Ms Redzepovic did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I will determine the application on the papers.

[11] After considering all the material, Ms Redzepovic’s application for remedy from unfair dismissal is dismissed. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR546976>