Paul Rintoul v Quality Builders Unit Trust

[2024] FWC 859

[2024] FWC 859

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Paul Rintoul
v

Quality Builders Unit Trust

(U2024/858)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON SYDNEY, 4 APRIL 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

1. Mr Paul Rintoul was employed by Quality Builders Unit Trust until he was dismissed on 22 January 2024. On 25 January 2024, Mr Rintoul filed an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

1. Quality Builders Unit Trust raised an objection in the F3 – Employer’s Response Form stating that Mr Rintoul earned over $200,000 per annum, being more than the high income threshold, of $167,500 per annum.
   
   

2. On 26 February 2024, correspondence was sent to Mr Rintoul in relation to the jurisdictional issues mentioned above and he was required to respond by 4 March 2024. Mr Rintoul responded the same day seeking advice from Chambers on the high-income threshold. On 27 February 2024 the Commission provided Mr Rintoul some links to information on the Commission’s website and suggested he obtain some specific legal advice.
   
   

3. On 5 March 2024, further correspondence was sent to Mr Rintoul following up the prior correspondence and he was required to respond by 5:00pm on 8 March 2024. Mr Rintoul was also advised that his application may be dismissed without further notice if he did not respond. Mr Rintoul did not respond to this correspondence.

1. On 11 March 2024, the Commission contacted Mr Rintoul by telephone. Mr Rintoul advised he was in the process of obtaining legal advice and advised that he would report to Chambers on the outcome of that advice by 18 March 2024. No correspondence has been received from Mr Rintoul since this time.

1. On 19 March 2024, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Rintoul again by telephone however he could not be reached. A voicemail message was left advising Mr Rintoul to respond to the correspondence as soon as possible.

1. On 26 March 2024, the Commission again attempted to contact Mr Rintoul by telephone however he again could not be reached. A voicemail message was left advising Mr Rintoul to respond to the correspondence as soon as possible. The voicemail also warned that if he did not contact the Commission his application would be dismissed without further notice.

1. To date, Mr Rintoul has not provided a response to the high-income threshold jurisdictional objection raised by the Respondent.

1. Section 587 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.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3‑2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773, or an application under section 527F that does not consist solely of an application for a stop sexual harassment order, on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or
 (b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or
 (b) on application.

1. 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).

1. In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss Mr Rintoul’s application on my own initiative for want of prosecution, utilising the facility provided by s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

1. I have separately made an order to this effect (PR773155).

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR773154>