Mitchell Williams v Alertvale Pty Ltd Summary

[2024] FWC 1010

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Mitchell Williams
v

Alertvale Pty Ltd

(U2024/3179)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 17 APRIL 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Mitchell Williams (the Applicant) was employed by Alertvale Pty Ltd (the Respondent) until he was dismissed on 25 February 2024. On 20 March 2024, the Applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

The Applicant’s application appeared to have been filed outside of the 21-day statutory timeframe by 3 days.

On 26 March 2024, correspondence was sent to the Applicant in relation to the out of time issue and he was required to respond by 2 April 2024. No response was received at this time.

Further correspondence was sent to the Applicant on 3 April 2024, and he was required to respond by 5:00pm on 8 April 2024. It was in this correspondence that the Applicant was advised the application may be dismissed without any notice if no response was received.

On 9 April 2024 the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant via telephone. However, the Applicant could not be reached. A voicemail message was left advising the Applicant to respond to the correspondence as soon as possible. The voicemail also warned that if he did not contact the Commission the application may be dismissed without further notice.

To date, the Applicant has not 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, 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.

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

The case of Mitchell Williams v Alertvale Pty Ltd involved an application by Mitchell Williams for a remedy for unfair dismissal against his former employer, Alertvale Pty Ltd. The application was lodged with the Fair Work Commission under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, but was filed three days beyond the statutory 21-day timeframe. Despite multiple communications from the Commission requesting a response to the late filing, Mr Williams failed to respond, leading to the application being dismissed for want of prosecution.

The primary legal issue the Commission had to address was whether the application could be dismissed under section 587 of the Act due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and lack of prosecution. The Commission considered whether the application was frivolous or vexatious, or if it had no reasonable prospects of success. Given Mr Williams' failure to respond to correspondence from the Commission, and his non-compliance with the statutory timeframe, the Commission found that the application had no reasonable prospects of success and was therefore dismissible under section 587(3)(a) of the Act.

The Commission concluded that the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution as Mr Williams had failed to engage with the process despite multiple opportunities to do so. The Commission's decision was based on the clear provisions of section 587 of the Act, which empowers the Commission to dismiss applications that are not made in accordance with the Act, or that have no reasonable prospects of success. The Commission's decision was made on its own initiative, as there was no application from the Respondent to dismiss the matter.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the application be dismissed for want of prosecution. The order was made in accordance with section 587(3)(a) of the Act, reflecting the Commission's jurisdiction to dismiss applications that fail to meet procedural requirements or lack reasonable prospects of success. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and engaging with the Commission's process, particularly in employment-related disputes.

Mitchell Williams v Alertvale Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established