Mr Simon Willis v Queensland Drilling Services Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 4824

[2014] FWC 4824

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Mr Simon Willis
v
Queensland Drilling Services Pty Ltd
(U2014/4556)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON BRISBANE, 18 JULY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal - application dismissed.

[1] This matter involves an application for unfair dismissal remedy made pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, (the Act). The application was lodged in Brisbane on 12 February 2014. The application was made by Mr Simon Willis (the applicant) and the respondent is Queensland Drilling Services Pty Ltd (the respondent).

[2] The application was then referred to my Chambers for Arbitration.

[3] A Directions Hearing was listed for 16 May 2014. Both the applicant and respondent participated by telephone. In the course of the Directions hearing the applicant used inappropriate language and appeared to then end his participation in the hearing by hanging up the telephone.

[4] Correspondence was sent to the applicant from my Chambers requesting an explanation by close of business Thursday 29 May 2014. I note that the correspondence also advised the parties that “Should the Applicant make no submission in respect of these Directions, the application may be dismissed”.

[5] To date no response of any form has been received from the applicant. The notifications from the Tribunal have all been directed to the address provided by the applicant on his application.

[6] In the circumstances it is appropriate for me to consider whether to exercise my discretion to dismiss the application for want of prosecution.

[7] The Full Bench of Fair Work Commission in Sayer v Melsteel  1Pty Ltd considered that in a case where an Applicant has failed to attend at a Hearing to prosecute the matter it would be open to Fair Work Commission to consider exercising the power of the Tribunal under s.587(1). Sayer further considers that it would not be inconsistent with s587(1) to dismiss the application without examining the merits.

[8] I adopt the approach of the Full Bench in Sayer in this matter.

[9] The history of this matter as outlined above make it clear, in my view, that this matter should be dismissed pursuant to s.587 for the reasons discussed above.

[10] Accordingly the matter is dismissed.

COMMISSIONER

 1   Sayer v Melsteel[2011] FWAFB 7498

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR553277>