Rebecca Pile v No 1 Riverside Quay Pty Ltd T/A BP Retail
[2018] FWC 3643
•27 JUNE 2018
| [2018] FWC 3643 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Rebecca Pile
v
No 1 Riverside Quay Pty Ltd T/A BP Retail
(U2018/5125)
| Deputy President Dean | SYDNEY, 27 JUNE 2018 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.
On 16 May 2018, Ms Rebecca Pile made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.
Ms Pile’s application states that she commenced employment with No 1 Riverside Quay Pty Ltd T/A BP Retail (BP Retail) on 8 February 2010 and that her dismissal took effect on 29 March 2018.
The application appeared to have been filed 27 days outside the 21 day period prescribed by s.394(2) of the Act.
On 29 May 2018, the BP Retail’s representative wrote to the Commission and advised that given that the application was out of time BP Retail would not be participating in a conciliation conference.
The matter was allocated to me to determine whether an extension of time should be granted.
On 1 June 2018, the Commission wrote to Ms Pile asking for a written explanation as to the late filing of her application. She was asked to provide this statement no later than 4.00pm on 8 June 2018. No response was received.
On 13 June 2018, correspondence was sent to Ms Pile noting she had previously been directed to file a statement in the Commission but had not done so. She was given until 4.00pm on Friday 15 June 2018 to respond and was advised that in the absence of any material being received her application may be dismissed.
Final attempts were made to contact Ms Pile by telephone on 20 June 2018.
To date Ms Pile has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.
Section 587(1) 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.
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).
In the circumstances of this matter, I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.
An order to that effect will issue with this decision.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR608296>
0
0
0