| [2022] FWC 3095 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Mr Brian Morton
v
Gathercoles
(U2022/10545)
| COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 24 NOVEMBER 2022 |
Application for relief from unfair dismissal – incomplete application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.
On 2 November 2022 Mr Brian Morton made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).
The application form filed by Mr Morton was incomplete in that he did not complete section 3.1, which asks the applicant to outline the reasons for dismissal, if any, given by the employer.
On 3 November 2022 the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Morton’s nominated email address advising that he needed to provide further details as section 3.1 of his application remained blank. The Commission advised that if the details required by section 3.1 were not provided within 14 days, his application may be dismissed. An SMS notification was also sent to Mr Morton’s nominated telephone number, requesting that he contact the Commission.
On 4 November 2022 the Commission contacted Mr Morton on his nominated telephone number to request the missing details. Mr Morton stated that he had supporting information that answered section 3.1. He was advised that he could email the information to the Commission but that an answer to section 3.1 must be entered on the application form itself. Mr Morton said that he would try to send in a completed application soon after the call.
As the information sought from Mr Morton was not received, on 8 November 2022 the Commission again attempted to contact Mr Morton on his nominated telephone number. Mr Morton did not answer, and a voicemail message was left asking Mr Morton to provide the Commission with the information requested of him.
On 15 November 2022 the Commission again attempted to contact Mr Morton on his nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left requesting that Mr Morton provide a completed application and advised Mr Morton that, in addition, the matter remains unpaid.
To date Mr Morton has not provided the information sought, has not paid the application fee, or filed a completed waiver form and has not otherwise engaged with the Commission.
Section 587(1) of the FW Act provides as follows:
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 prospect of success.
In the circumstances where Mr Morton does not respond to the Commission I have determined that the application has no reasonable prospect of success. As such, I order that the application be dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the FW Act.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR748172>
- AGLC
- Mr Brian Morton v Gathercoles [2022] FWC 3095
- Case
- [2022] FWC 3095
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Court were whether the application could be dismissed for being incomplete, and if Mr Morton's failure to respond to requests for information justified dismissal under the Act. The Court considered whether Mr Morton's application had a reasonable prospect of success, and whether it was in accordance with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The Commission held that the application was incomplete and had no reasonable prospect of success due to Mr Morton's lack of engagement with the Commission and failure to provide the requested information.
In determining that the application had no reasonable prospect of success, Commissioner Bissett found that Mr Morton had not complied with the procedural requirements of the Act, nor had he engaged with the Commission to remedy the incomplete application. Given the circumstances, the Court found that the application could be dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act. Commissioner Bissett therefore ordered that the application be dismissed at the Commission's initiative.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.