Renz Kobrynski v RAR HR Services Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2024] FWC 3444

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Renz Kobrynski
v

RAR HR Services Australia Pty Ltd

(C2024/7662)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

CANBERRA, 10 DECEMBER 2024

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – no extension of time.

This decision concerns an application made by Renz Kobrynski (Applicant) pursuant to s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for the Commission to deal with a general protections dispute involving his dismissal from RAR HR Services Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

Section 366(1) of the Act requires that a general protections application is made within 21 days after the dismissal took effect, or within such further period as the Commission allows under s.366(2). This application was made 9 days outside the 21-day period prescribed by the Act and can only proceed if the Commission allows further time for the application to be made.

The application was listed for hearing on 10 December 2024 to consider whether further time should be allowed for the application to be made.

For the reasons given in transcript at the conclusion of the hearing, I find that there are no exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of time. As a result, the application is dismissed.

An order giving effect to this decision is separately issued.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

R Kobrynski on his own behalf.
A Bodman for RAR HR Services Australia Pty Ltd.

Hearing details:
2024.
By telephone:
December 10.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Renz Kobrynski initiated a general protections application under the Fair Work Act 2009 against RAR HR Services Australia Pty Ltd, claiming his dismissal was unjust. The application was lodged outside the statutory 21-day period, prompting the need for an extension of time. The Fair Work Commission assessed whether exceptional circumstances justified permitting the application beyond the statutory deadline.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether the 21-day statutory period for making a general protections application could be extended beyond the specified timeframe. The Commission had to consider if there were exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension under s.366(2) of the Fair Work Act.

The Deputy President found that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted granting an extension of time for the Applicant's application. The reasoning was that the Applicant had not provided sufficient evidence or compelling reasons to justify the late filing. Consequently, the application was dismissed for being outside the prescribed timeframe. This decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to statutory deadlines in employment disputes.

No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the application for lack of jurisdiction due to the failure to comply with the statutory time limit. The decision highlighted the Commission's stance on the necessity for timely applications to ensure fairness and efficiency in the resolution of employment disputes.

Renz Kobrynski v RAR HR Services Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established