Mr Gregory George Thomson v Kodak Australia
[2010] FWA 345
•20 JANUARY 2010
[2010] FWA 345 |
|
DECISION |
Workplace Relations Act 1996
s.643 - Application for relief re (Unlawful and Harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable) termination of employment
v
Kodak Australia
(U2009/5105)
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT CARTWRIGHT | SYDNEY, 20 JANUARY 2010 |
Termination of Employment – extension of time.
[1] Mr Thomson lodged an application under s.643 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 on 26 November 2009 in relation to termination of his employment with Kodak Australasia Ltd on 10 June 2009.
[2] He applied for an extension of time to lodge the application, giving the reasons as “Issues with online forms not working, lost password – no facility for printing and scanning – I had to complete university exams and assignments”. Kodak objected to extension of time and to conciliation prior to that matter being determined.
[3] The Commission wrote to Mr Thomson on 8 December 2009 inviting him to provide in writing by 18 December 2009 any further material he considered necessary in support of the extension of time application. None was provided. In compliance with the Commission’s timetable, Kodak responded that in the absence of further material from Mr Thomson it relied on submissions previously made in its Form R28 and R29 responses. Mr Thomson then replied on 6 January 2010, contending in conclusion that the “out of time application was due to several personal and life commitments that prevented me from finding a confidential and private place to prepare a hard copy of this application”.
[4] The Commission’s letter of 8 December 2009 referred to principles in Brodie-Hanns v MTV Publishing Ltd (1995) 67 IR 298 which have generally guided decisions on whether the time for lodgement should be extended.
[5] Having reviewed the material on file and correspondence from Mr Thomson and Kodak, I am not satisfied that Mr Thomson has established an acceptable explanation of almost five months’ delay after the statutory 21 days. Mr Thomson submits that “I was not able to manage my life and technical difficulties as effectively as before in order to submit this application within the normal time frame.” It is also a process he was “unfamiliar with”. Further, Mr Thomson cites the need to complete university exams and assignments, regular job search activities and trying to locate his superannuation. In my view, the factors that Mr Thomson relies on do not provide an acceptable explanation of almost 5 months delay.
[6] Nor does consideration of the full range of factors in Brodie-Hanns greatly assist Mr Thomson’s request for variation of the lodgement date. He contests the fairness of his retrenchment. While it is not possible at this stage to say that the application is without merit, there is nothing in considering all of the Brodie-Hanns principles that would satisfy me that the Tribunal should exercise the available discretion to vary the 21 day statutory application period.
[7] The application is dismissed.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code {A}, PR992773>
0
1
0