Ranjith Naranpanawa v The Scott Group of Companies

[2014] FWC 2225

[2014] FWC 2225

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Ranjith Naranpanawa
v
The Scott Group of Companies
(U2013/14059)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY MELBOURNE, 4 APRIL 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 30 September 2013, Mr Ranjith Naranpanawa made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Naranpanawa’s employment had been terminated by The Scott Group of Companies (SGC) on 19 September 2013.

[2] The matter was the subject of conciliation however, the matter was not resolved. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing on 3 and 4 February 2014.

[3] Mr Naranpanawa was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material he wished to rely on by noon, on 16 December 2013.

[4] Mr Naranpanawa requested an extension to file his submissions. A further period of time was granted and Mr Naranpanawa was required to file his material by 3 January 2014.

[5] Mr Naranpanawa did not comply with this direction and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before Commissioner Wilson on 16 January 2014.

[6] Mr Naranpanawa was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material he wished to rely on by noon, on 14 February 2014.

[7] On 17 February 2014, SGC filed an objection to the application and sought the dismissal of Mr Naranpanawa’s application due to the failure to comply with the Fair Work Commission’s (the Commission) directions.

[8] On 18 February 2014, Mr Naranpanawa was sent correspondence informing him of SGC’s s.399A application. Mr Naranpanawa was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of SGC’s application by close of business, on 4 March 2014. Mr Naranpanawa was advised that if he failed to comply with this direction, his application would be dismissed.

[9] Mr Naranpanawa did not file any material with the Commission.

[10] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

(c) failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded.

....

(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.

[11] I am satisfied that SGC’s objection filed on 17 February 2014 is an application to have the matter dismissed for Mr Naranpanawa’s failure to comply with the directions of the Commission.

[12] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[13] As Mr Naranpanawa did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I will determine the application on the papers.

[14] After considering all the material, Mr Naranpanawa’s application for remedy from unfair dismissal is dismissed because he did not comply with the directions. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR549294>