Mr Warren Williams v Hawks Nest Lawn Mowing Service
[2017] FWC 6416
•4 DECEMBER 2017
| [2017] FWC 6416 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Mr Warren Williams
v
Hawks Nest Lawn Mowing Service
(U2017/10824)
| Deputy President Dean | SYDNEY, 4 DECEMBER 2017 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.
On 9 October 2017, Mr Warren Williams made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
Mr Williams’ application states that he commenced employment with Hawks Nest Lawn Mowing Service on 15 February 2011 and that his dismissal took effect on 20 September 2017.
The application was listed for a telephone conciliation before a Fair Work Commission conciliator on 31 October 2017. However the conciliation could not take place as Mr Williams was not able to be contacted at that time.
The matter was therefore allocated to my Chambers to be further allocated for arbitration.
On 10 November 2017, my Chambers sent the following letter to Mr Williams by express post:
“Dear Mr Williams,
Re: U2017/10824 – Warren Williams v Hawks Nest Lawn Mowing Service
I refer to your application for unfair dismissal remedy that you lodged with the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) on 9 October 2017.
Your application has now been allocated to Deputy President Dean.
The Commission has made a number of attempts to contact you by telephone, on 26 October 2017 and 8 November 2017, and by post, on 26 October 2017 and 31 October 2017.
Despite our requests for you to contact the Commission, unfortunately we have not received a response from you.
You are directed to advise our chambers within 7 days if you would like to continue with your unfair dismissal application.
If we do not hear from you by close of business on Friday, 17 November 2017, then your application may be dismissed without any further notice to you.”
On 23 November 2017, a further letter was sent to Mr Williams by express post noting that he had previously been directed to contact the Commission to confirm whether he intended to pursue his application but had not done so. Mr Williams was given until 4pm on 28 November 2017 to respond. Mr Williams was advised in the absence of any response, his application may be dismissed.
On 22 November 2017 and 23 November 2017, my Chambers attempted to contact Mr Williams by telephone, however the calls went answered and we were not able to leave a voicemail message.
To date, Mr Williams has not replied to any of the Commission’s correspondence.
Section 587(1) of the Act provides:
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 prospects of success.
(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:
(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or
(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.
(3) FWC may dismiss an application:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.
The words, “Without limiting when FWC may dismiss an application”, at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).
In the circumstances of this matter, I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.
An order to that effect will issue with this decision.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR598319>
0
0
0