Mr David Mitchell v Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd T/A Coles Liquor Group
[2011] FWA 1072
•18 FEBRUARY 2011
[2011] FWA 1072 |
|
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Mr David Mitchell
v
Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd T/A Coles Liquor Group
(U2010/12100)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY | PERTH, 18 FEBRUARY 2011 |
[1] On 25 January 2011, Freehills lodged a notice requesting permission to appear for Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd T/A Coles Liquor Group (the respondent) in this matter.
[2] Freehills submitted that this would mean the matter could be dealt with in a more efficient manner taking into account the complexity of the factual information that the respondent will need to put into evidence before Fair Work Australia; and submitted that its client does not have personnel in Western Australia who have experience or expertise in running hearings of this nature and as such is not able to effectively represent itself.
[3] Mr David Mitchell (the applicant) advised by email that he objected to permission being granted to Freehills to appear.
[4] On 4 February 2011 I conducted a Directions Conference and advised Freehills and the applicant that should they wish to make any submission about permission being granted they should do so by 11 February 2011. On 9 February the applicant provided written submissions in support of his objections and on 11 February 2011 submissions were received from Freehills. I undertook to provide a decision in writing on the granting of permission.
[5] Prior to Freehills seeking permission to appear, I dealt directly with the respondent through various written communications as a result of their initial assertion that the application had been lodged outside the time allowed. That assertion was eventually withdrawn. It was apparent to me through those communications that the respondent did not have the expertise to properly address the issues relating to an application of this nature causing a delay in progression of the matter. It appeared to me that the respondent did not represent themselves effectively
[6] It was also apparent to me through the communications regarding the proceedings and the Directions Conference I convened that if I granted permission for Freehills to appear that it would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently. There is some force in the applicant’s submission that the matter is not complex.
[7] I have taken the complexity of the matter into account and consider that it would be more efficiently dealt with if permission for Freehills to appear for the respondent were given. I also find that it would be unfair not to allow the respondent to be represented because the respondent is unable to represent himself, herself or itself effectively. I also consider that permitting Freehills to appear for the respondent will balance the needs to the respondent with those of the applicant. Furthermore I conclude that Freehills involvement will better enable the matter to be dealt with are quickly, flexibly and informally.
[8] Permission to appear is granted.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Final written submissions:
2011,
11 February
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR506868>
0
0
0