Mr Brendon Lynch v Campbell Family Trust T/A Waters Edge Boutique Hotel

[2012] FWA 4592

[2012] FWA 4592

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Brendon Lynch
v
Campbell Family Trust T/A Waters Edge Boutique Hotel
(U2012/6391)

COMMISSIONER STANTON NEWCASTLE, 28 MAY 2012

Termination of employment - alleged unfair dismissal - jurisdictional objection - resignation - failure to comply with directions - application dismissed.

[1] This matter concerns an application by Mr Brendon Lynch (the applicant) made on 20 March 2012 for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The respondent is Campbell Family Trust T/A Waters Edge Boutique Hotel (the respondent).

[2] The respondent contests the application and contends that the applicant resigned his employment in a series of text messages between the applicant and respondent that followed a discussion concerning certain workplace issues.

[3] The application was subject to a conciliation conference before me on 3 May 2012 where the respondent pressed the jurisdictional objection. The parties were unable to resolve their differences. Accordingly, the applicant was directed to file with Fair Work Australia and serve on the respondent an outline of submissions and any witness statements or other documentary material he intended to rely upon by noon on Thursday, 24 May 2012.

[4] The applicant failed to comply with the Directions issued on 3 May 2012. The applicant also failed to contact Chambers prior to noon on Thursday, 24 May 2012 and present a case for an extension of time for filing material in support of the claim that he did not resign.

[5] The applicant contacted Chambers at 3.55pm on Friday, 25 May 2012 stating that he had technical issues with his computer and was unable to file the necessary documentation required by the Directions. The applicant subsequently sent a short email to Chambers at 8:44pm on Sunday, 27 May 2012. That email fell well short of the materials sought by the Directions issued on 3 May 2012 so as to enable the applicant to prosecute his claim and for the respondent employer to respond appropriately.

[6] In my view, the applicant has been afforded ample opportunity to put his case forward.

[7] In proceedings today, the applicant acknowledged he made no contact with Fair Work Australia to explain himself or seek an extension of time to comply with the Directions issued.

[8] Section 577 of the Act requires FWA to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that, amongst other things, is fair, just and quick. In all the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied the applicant has been provided a fair go but has failed to prosecute his application. In that regard, the respondent is also entitled to a fair go in terms of having such claims determined in a prompt manner.

[9] Pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act, I dismiss the application.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Both parties were self-represented.

Hearing details:

2012
Newcastle
3 and 28 May

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR524533>