Peter Spratt v The Neutral Bay Club

[2020] FWC 4508

[2020] FWC 4508

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Peter Spratt
v
The Neutral Bay Club
(U2020/10428)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI SYDNEY, 26 AUGUST 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 31 July 2020, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) received an application from Peter Spratt for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) in respect to his employment with The Neutral Bay Club.

[2] Mr Spratt said his dismissal took effect on 30 April 2020. Accordingly, it appeared Mr Spratt had lodged his application more than 21 days after his dismissal took effect.

[3] On 7 August 2020, my chambers sent Mr Spratt correspondence about the requirement to obtain an extension of time for his application to be validly lodged. I directed him to respond by 5:00 pm on 12 August 2020 in support of obtaining an extension of time in which to validly lodge his application. However, no response was received.

[4] On 13 August 2020, my chambers sent further correspondence to Mr Spratt, directing him to respond by 4:00 pm on 17 August 2020, and advising that if he did not respond, his application may be dismissed.

[5] To date, Mr Spratt has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

[6] 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.

[7] 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).

[8] In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

[9] An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR722153>