| [2022] FWC 1625 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Polina Vlasova
v
St Georges Basin Country Club Pty Ltd
(U2022/4252)
| COMMISSIONER P RYAN | SYDNEY, 24 JUNE 2022 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy
Background
Ms Polina Vlasova (Applicant) filed an application for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) (Application)
By the Application, the Applicant alleges she was unfairly dismissed from her employment with St Georges Basin Country Club Pty Ltd on 6 April 2022.
The matter was listed for a conciliation conference before a staff conciliator on 26 May 2022. The conciliation conference did not go ahead as the Applicant did not attend the conference and was unable to be contacted.
On 15 June 2022, the matter was then allocated to my chambers.
On 20 June 2022, the matter was listed for a case management and directions hearing. The case management and directions hearing did not go ahead as the Applicant failed to attend without notice to the Commission. Furthermore, several attempts by my chambers to contact the Applicant were unsuccessful.
On 20 June 2022, my chambers sent correspondence to the Applicant requesting an explanation for the Applicant’s non-attendance be provided by 4:00pm on 22 June 2022. The Applicant was advised that in the absence of a response, the Application may be dismissed pursuant to s.587 of the FW Act.
The Applicant did not respond.
Legislative Provisions
Section 587 of the FW Act provides as follows:
“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 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.”
The words, “[w]ithout limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the FW 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).
Consideration
Taking into consideration the Applicant’s failure to attend the conciliation conference, the case management and directions hearing, and her failure to provide a response or explanation for her non-attendance, I have decided to dismiss the Application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the FW Act.
For completeness, at the time of issuing this decision, the Applicant has not made any contact with the Commission.
Disposition
The Application is dismissed. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR743032>
- AGLC
- Polina Vlasova v St Georges Basin Country Club Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 1625
- Case
- [2022] FWC 1625
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue the Commissioner had to determine was whether the Application should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the Applicant's non-attendance at the scheduled hearings and her failure to respond to correspondence. Section 587 of the Fair Work Act empowers the Fair Work Commission to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act, is frivolous or vexatious, or has no reasonable prospects of success. The Commissioner considered that the Applicant's non-attendance and failure to respond justified dismissal of the Application.
In dismissing the Application, the Commissioner noted that the Applicant did not attend the scheduled conciliation conference and the case management and directions hearing. The Commissioner had sent correspondence to the Applicant requesting an explanation for her non-attendance, but the Applicant did not respond. The Commissioner concluded that the Applicant's failure to attend the hearings and provide a response or explanation warranted dismissal of the Application for want of prosecution under section 587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act.
The Commissioner dismissed the Application and ordered that an order to that effect would issue with the decision. The Commissioner also noted that, at the time of issuing the decision, the Applicant had not made any contact with the Commission.
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.