Mathew Weaven v Mineral Resources Limited Summary

[2024] FWC 15

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Mathew Weaven
v

Mineral Resources Limited

(U2023/11141)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 4 JANUARY 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

Mathew Weaven (the Applicant) was employed by Mineral Resources Limited (the Respondent) from 21 February 2023 until he was dismissed on 9 November 2023.

On 13 November 2023, the Applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

The legal business name nominated by the respondent in their F3 – Employer’s Response Form in this matter was Process Minerals International Pty Ltd.

On 13 December 2023, correspondence was sent to the Applicant and his representative, Unfair Dismissals Australia Pty Ltd, in relation to the legal name discrepancy mentioned above and he was required to respond by 21 December 2023. No response was received at this time.

Further correspondence was sent to the Applicant and his representative on 22 December 2023 and he was required to respond by 5:00pm on 2 January 2023. It was in this correspondence that the Applicant was advised his application would be dismissed without any notice if no response was received.

To date, the Applicant, nor his representative, have responded to any of the correspondence sent by my Chambers.

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 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.”

The words, “Without 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 s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

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

An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mathew Weaven, the Applicant, brought a claim for unfair dismissal against his former employer, Mineral Resources Limited, the Respondent, before the Fair Work Commission. The Applicant was employed by the Respondent from 21 February 2023 until his dismissal on 9 November 2023. The Applicant lodged an application for unfair dismissal remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 on 13 November 2023. The Respondent was originally listed as Process Minerals International Pty Ltd in their response form, which led to correspondence being sent to the Applicant and his representative to address this discrepancy. Despite being given multiple opportunities to respond, the Applicant did not address the name discrepancy or respond to any correspondence from the Commission.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether to dismiss the Applicant's application for unfair dismissal for want of prosecution, pursuant to section 587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission considered the statutory provisions, the procedural history of the case, and the Applicant's failure to respond to correspondence regarding the name discrepancy and the requirement to address this issue. The Commission noted that it had the authority to dismiss an application on its own initiative if the application was not being prosecuted. Given the Applicant's failure to respond to multiple notices and warnings, the Commission determined that the application had not been prosecuted and was therefore dismissible under section 587(3)(a) of the Act.

In light of the Applicant's failure to respond to any correspondence and address the procedural issues raised, the Commission decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution. The Commission emphasised that it had the jurisdiction to dismiss an application without being limited to the specific circumstances outlined in section 587(1) of the Act. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the application, and an order to that effect was issued with the decision. The dismissal was based on the Applicant's lack of response to procedural notices and the failure to address the issues raised by the Commission.

Mathew Weaven v Mineral Resources Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established