Orhan Karakaya v Transdev John Holland Buses (Nsw) Pty Ltd

[2024] FWC 2493

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Orhan Karakaya
v

Transdev John Holland Buses (Nsw) Pty Ltd

(U2024/7988)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ROBERTS

SYDNEY, 17 SEPTEMBER 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

On 10 July 2024 Mr. Orhan Karakaya (Applicant) applied for an unfair dismissal remedy under Part 3-2 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) against his former employer, Transdev John Holland Buses (NSW) Pty Ltd (Respondent).

The application was listed for directions on 26 August 2024. The Applicant did not appear. I made directions on that date requiring the Applicant to file and serve material in support of the application on or before Monday 9 September 2024. No material was received from the Applicant in response to those directions.

By application dated 23 August 2024 the Respondent applied to have the application dismissed pursuant to s.399A(1)(a) of the Act. The Respondent relied on the Applicant’s previous non-attendance at a conciliation conference convened by the Commission on 12 August 2024.

Following the Applicant’s failure to file any material in response to the Commission’s directions of 26 August 2024, the Respondent sought to amend its application to rely on s.399A(1)(b) of the Act to have the unfair dismissal application dismissed.

Section 399A(1)(b) provides that the Commission may, subject to an application being made by an employer, dismiss an application under Division 4 of Part 3-2 of the Act if the Commission is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably failed to comply with a direction or order of the Commission relating to the application.

The Applicant was advised by my Chambers that any response to the Respondent’s application to have the application dismissed under s.399A was to be provided in writing by 4pm 16 September 2024. No response was received from the Applicant. No other explanation has been provided and there has been no contact from the Applicant in relation to the application.

I am satisfied that the Applicant has unreasonably failed to comply with a direction of the Commission dated 26 August 2024. Accordingly, the application for an unfair dismissal remedy is dismissed pursuant to s.399A(1)(b) of the Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orhan Karakaya has applied for an unfair dismissal remedy against his former employer, Transdev John Holland Buses (NSW) Pty Ltd. The application was listed for directions on 26 August 2024, however, the applicant did not appear and subsequently failed to file any material in support of the application by the direction date of 9 September 2024. In response, the respondent applied to have the unfair dismissal application dismissed. The application was dismissed by the Fair Work Commission pursuant to section 399A(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009, which provides that the Commission may dismiss an application if it is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably failed to comply with a direction or order of the Commission relating to the application.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the applicant had unreasonably failed to comply with a direction of the Commission. The Commission found that the applicant had not filed any material in response to the Commission’s directions, and there had been no contact from the applicant in relation to the application. The Commission was satisfied that the applicant had unreasonably failed to comply with the direction, which led to the dismissal of the unfair dismissal application. The Commission found that the applicant had unreasonably failed to comply with a direction of the Commission, which was a sufficient basis for dismissing the application under section 399A(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for an unfair dismissal remedy. The dismissal was pursuant to section 399A(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009, which provides that the Commission may dismiss an application if it is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably failed to comply with a direction or order of the Commission relating to the application. The Commission found that the applicant had unreasonably failed to comply with a direction of the Commission, which led to the dismissal of the unfair dismissal application. The dismissal of the application was the final outcome of the case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established