Mr Eric Bruce Frazier v Hamisle Pty Ltd and C & O Chambers Pty Ltd T/A Auto Panel Repairs

[2012] FWA 8092

[2012] FWA 8092

The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 19 September 2012.

The document has been amended to correct a typographical error.

Mark Evans

Associate to Deputy President Sams

Dated 19 September 2012.

[2012] FWA 8092

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

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

Mr Eric Bruce Frazier
v
Hamisle Pty Ltd and C & O Chambers Pty Ltd T/A Auto Panel Repairs
(U2012/6033)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS SYDNEY, 19 SEPTEMBER 2012

Application for unfair dismissal remedy - failure of applicant to comply with directions - application dismissed.

[1] This decision concerns an application by Mr Eric Frazier (the ‘applicant’) pursuant to s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’) for relief in relation to his alleged unfair dismissal by Hamisle Pty Ltd and C & O Chambers Pty Ltd t/a Auto Panel Repairs (the ‘respondent’). The dismissal took effect on 28 February 2012. The application was lodged on 9 March 2012.

[2] The application was listed for conciliation by telephone on 30 March 2012 before a Fair Work Conciliator. The matter could not be resolved at the conciliation conference and the matter was subsequently allocated to me for arbitration. A notice of listing together with directions setting out a timetable for the filing of material relied upon by the parties was issued by my Chambers on 26 April 2012. The notice of listing indicated that the matter was to be heard on 22 May 2012 at the Magistrates Court in Wodonga, Victoria. The applicant failed to comply with the directions and did not contact my Chambers or the FWA Registry to give an explanation for this failure. My Chambers received a phone call from the respondent on 10 May 2012 in which the respondent indicated that it wished to have the hearing date vacated and the matter be discontinued due to the applicant’s non-compliance with the directions.

[3] For abundant caution, a letter was sent to the applicant, via express post, by my Associate on 14 May 2012 in the following terms:

‘Dear Mr Frazier,

On 26 April 2012, the directions timetable set down in this matter was sent by registered post to the address you had previously provided to Fair Work Australia.

You were directed to supply any statements or submissions that you seek to rely on by 4pm, 3 May 2012. You did not supply any material to Fair Work Australia or the respondent.

As a result of your non-compliance and at the request of the respondent, the listing date for this matter of 22 May 2012 has been vacated.

If you do not contact chambers within 7 days from the date of this letter, the Deputy President will dismiss your application (U2012/6033) for want of prosecution.’

[4] The hearing date of 22 May 2012 was subsequently vacated and, as at the date of this decision, there has been no further communication from the applicant. Given that the applicant did not comply with FWA’s directions and failed to provide any explanation, I have reached the conclusion that he no longer wishes to pursue his application. I do not consider the interests of justice would be served by taking any further steps to encourage him to pursue his application. Pursuant to s 587(3) of the Act, I hereby dismiss this application for relief from unfair dismissal, on my own initiative, and for want of prosecution. An order to that effect will be issued contemporaneously with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR529337>