Poppy Ann Robinson v Ellenbrook United Football Club

Case [2023] FWC 3308


[2023] FWC 3308

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Poppy Ann Robinson
v

Ellenbrook United Football Club

(U2023/7881)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 12 DECEMBER 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

  1. Poppy Robinson (the Applicant) alleges she was employed by Ellenbrook United Football Club (the Respondent) from 26 April 2022 and her employment ended on 13 August 2023.

  1. On 22 August 2023, the Applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

  1. The Respondent raised two objections in the F3 – Employer’s Response Form stating that;-

    ·   the Applicant was not an employee, that they are a not for profit incorporated

    Association run by a volunteers, the applicant was a volunteer; and

    ·  not dismissed.

  1. On 20 November 2023, correspondence was sent to the Applicant in relation to the jurisdictional issues mentioned above and she was required to respond by 27 November 2023. No response was received at this time.

  1. Further correspondence was sent to the Applicant on 5 December 2023 and she was required to respond by 5:00pm on 8 December 2023. It was in this correspondence that the Applicant was advised her application would be dismissed without any notice if no response was received.

  1. 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.

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.”

  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

<PR769277>

Details
AGLC
Poppy Ann Robinson v Ellenbrook United Football Club [2023] FWC 3308
Case
[2023] FWC 3308
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Poppy Ann Robinson brought an application against Ellenbrook United Football Club before the Fair Work Commission, alleging she had been unfairly dismissed. She claimed to have been employed by the Club from 26 April 2022 and that her employment ended on 13 August 2023. The Commission was asked to provide a remedy for this alleged unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Club objected to the application on two grounds: firstly, it argued that Robinson was not an employee but a volunteer, and secondly, that she had not been dismissed. The matter was set down for hearing, and correspondence was sent to Robinson regarding the Club's jurisdictional objections. She was given several opportunities to respond, but failed to do so.

The Commission had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the matter. It was necessary to consider whether Robinson was an employee of the Club, and if the Commission had the power to hear her dismissal claim. The Fair Work Act provides the Commission with the power to dismiss applications in certain circumstances, including where the application is not made in accordance with the Act, or where it is frivolous or vexatious, or where it has no reasonable prospects of success. The Commission also had the power to dismiss an application on its own initiative if it was not to be heard under s.365 or 773 of the Act.

The Vice President considered the circumstances and decided to dismiss Robinson's application for want of prosecution. The lack of response to correspondence sent to her regarding the jurisdictional issues meant that the application was unlikely to succeed. The Vice President found that the application was without reasonable prospects of success, and that it was appropriate to dismiss it. An order dismissing the application was made.

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.