Petar Veledinovic v Combined Battery Systems Pty Ltd

Case [2023] FWC 2310


[2023] FWC 2310

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Petar Veledinovic
v

Combined Battery Systems Pty Ltd

(U2023/5576)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

  1. Petar Veledinovic (the applicant) began employment with Combined Battery Systems Pty Ltd (the respondent) on the 10th of November 2020 and he was allegedly dismissed on the 1st of June 2023.

  2. On the 21st of June 2023, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

  3. The legal business name nominated by the respondent in their F3 – Employer’s Response Form in this matter was Minley Investments Pty Ltd.

  4. On the 16th of August 2023, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the legal business name discrepancy and he was required to respond by the 23rd of August 2023. No response was received at this time.

  5. Further correspondence was sent to the applicant on the 29th of August 2023. He was required to respond to this correspondence by 5:00pm the 1st of September 2023. It was in this correspondence that the applicant was advised his matter would be dismissed without further notice, should my chambers not receive a response.

  6. To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence sent by my Chambers.

  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.

(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.

  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 the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

  1. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR766065>

Details
AGLC
Petar Veledinovic v Combined Battery Systems Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 2310
Case
[2023] FWC 2310
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Petar Veledinovic applied to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal by Combined Battery Systems Pty Ltd. Veledinovic alleged that he was dismissed from his employment on the 1st of June 2023. He lodged the application on the 21st of June 2023. The Commission was presented with a discrepancy in the respondent's legal business name, which was addressed in correspondence sent to Veledinovic on the 16th of August 2023. The Commission gave him until the 23rd of August 2023 to respond. Veledinovic did not respond to this correspondence. Another correspondence was sent on the 29th of August 2023, advising Veledinovic that his matter would be dismissed without further notice if he did not respond by 5:00pm on the 1st of September 2023. Veledinovic did not respond to this correspondence either. The Vice President dismissed the application for want of prosecution, under s.587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Vice President considered whether the application was frivolous or vexatious, or had no reasonable prospects of success. However, the Vice President did not find it necessary to consider these issues. Instead, the Vice President considered s.587(1) of the Act, which provides that the Fair Work Commission may dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act, or if it is frivolous or vexatious, or has no reasonable prospects of success. The Vice President found that the application had not been prosecuted and was dismissed for want of prosecution, pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

The Vice President dismissed the application for unfair dismissal by Combined Battery Systems Pty Ltd, on the grounds that the applicant had failed to prosecute his application. The Vice President found that the applicant had failed to respond to correspondence from the Commission, despite being advised that his matter would be dismissed if he did not respond. The Vice President found that the application had no reasonable prospects of success, and was dismissed for want of prosecution. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.