Robert Singleton v Pardoo Roadhouse and Tavern T/A Northwest Business Pty Ltd

[2019] FWC 2121

[2019] FWC 2121

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Robert Singleton
v
Pardoo Roadhouse and Tavern T/A Northwest Business Pty Ltd
(U2018/13527)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS PERTH, 1 APRIL 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] This matter involves an application made by Mr Robert Singleton (the Applicant) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. The respondent is Pardoo Roadhouse and Tavern T/A Northwest Business Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] The Respondent in its form F3-Employer Response raised no jurisdictional objections to the application.

[3] The application was listed for a conference with a Fair Work Commission conciliator however the conciliation could not take place as the Respondent declined to participate.

[4] Consequently on 26 February 2019, correspondence was sent to the Applicant and the Respondent by way of a Notice of Listing setting down the matter for a hearing to determine the application and contained directions for the filing of materials from both sides. The directions advised that if the Applicant did not comply with the directions the application may be dismissed. The Applicant was directed to file with the Commission a written statement of evidence for each witness to be called (including the applicant), an outline of submissions and copies of any documents that will be relied on by 4:00pm Wednesday, 20 March 2019.

[5] A further letter was sent to the Applicant on 21 March 2019, noting he has not complied with directions and providing the Applicant with further time to lodge until 4:00pm Thursday, 28 March 2019. The letter stated non-compliance would mean the application would be dismissed.

[6] As at the date of this decision the Applicant has not responded to the Fair Work Commission’s correspondence as directed nor otherwise contacted the Fair Work Commission.

The legislation

[7] 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.

[8] 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.

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

[10] 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.

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

Decision

[12] In this case the Applicant has repeatedly failed to comply with the Fair Work Commission’s directions and was on notice that non-compliance would be grounds for the application to be dismissed.

[13] The Applicant in the circumstances here has been given a fair go.

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

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

[16] An order [PR706397] to this effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR706396>