Reyd Treleaven v LHS Rock Tools Australia

[2014] FWC 787

[2014] FWC 787

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Reyd Treleaven
v
LHS Rock Tools Australia
(U2013/10339)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS PERTH, 3 FEBRUARY 2014

Termination of employment.

[1] This matter involves an application made by Mr Reyd Treleaven (the applicant) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. The respondent is LHS Rock Tools Australia.

[2] The application was the subject of a conference with a Fair Work Commission conciliator on 17 December 2013 however the applicant did not attend the conference and has not replied to requests to explain his non-attendance.

[3] The application has been referred to me for determination.

[4] I wrote to the applicant on 8 January 2014 advising that the matter would be listed for a formal determinative proceeding and explaining the procedure involved. The letter requested that the applicant advise whether he wished to proceed with that hearing or to discontinue the application. The letter was sent by email and post.

[5] No response was received from the applicant.

[6] Further correspondence was sent to the applicant again requesting his response. This was sent by email and post on 20 January 2014.

[7] That correspondence explained that lack of a response by 30 January 2014 would be taken as an indication that the applicant did not want to continue with his application and the matter would be dismissed.

[8] As at the date of this decision there has been no response nor contact from the applicant.

The legislation

[9] Section 577 of the Act obliges the Fair Work Commission to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is fair, just and is quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities and is open and transparent and promotes harmonious and cooperative workplace relations.

[10] Further section 578 of the Act relevantly requires that in performing functions or exercising powers in relation to a matter the Fair Work Commission must take into account the Objects of the relevant Part of the Act.

[11] A section 394 application falls under Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal of the Act.

[12] The Objects of Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal are prescribed in section 381 of the Act. These Objects include the establishment of procedures dealing with unfair dismissal that are quick, flexible and informal and address the needs of employers and employees and involve procedures and remedies that ensure a “fair go all around” is accorded to both the employer and employee concerned.

[13] Section 587 (3) of the Act empowers the Fair Work Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative.

Decision

[14] In this case the applicant has failed to attend a conciliation conference and failed to comply with the directions to explain his intentions.

[15] The respondent employer is entitled to a fair go including having the claim made against them determined within a reasonable time.

[16] The applicant in the circumstances here has been given a fair go.

[17] Consequently my decision is that this application for an unfair dismissal remedy should now dismissed on the initiative of the Fair Work Commission under section 587 (3) of the Act.

[18] An order to this effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR547358>