Ryan Hawkins v Eastern States Framing - [2025] FWC 1325

[2025] FWC 1325

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 – Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Ryan Hawkins
v

Eastern States Framing

(U2025/1445)

COMMISSIONER SPENCER

BRISBANE, 13 MAY 2025

Application for unfair dismissal remedy – Applicant failed to respond to any Commission contact since lodgement – failure to attend conferences – failure to progress application – application dismissed for want of prosecution.

Introduction

Mr Ryan Hawkins (the Applicant) made an unfair dismissal application (to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission)) pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Hawkins stated that he had been dismissed from his employment with Eastern States Framing (the Respondent).

The Commission’s file on this matter reflected that the matter was listed for conference before a conciliator to occur on 6 March 2025 with an SMS reminder sent to the Applicant the day prior. Both parties were telephoned three times and voicemails were left, however both parties did not respond or attend and therefore the telephone conciliation could not proceed.

The matter was then allocated to my Chambers. On 18 March 2025, a Notice of Listing was sent to the parties to attend a mention/conference (by way of a Teams Link) to be conducted on 28 March 2025. The Parties did not comply with the direction to confirm their attendance prior to the conference and therefore an email was sent on 26 March 2025 directing the parties to urgently confirm their attendance. The Respondent called that afternoon to confirm attendance. The Applicant was called near to 4pm on 26 March 2025 and a voicemail was left requiring him to urgently confirm attendance by contacting Chambers either by email or by phone. The Applicant did not contact Chambers.

On 28 March 2025, the Respondent attended the conference. During the scheduled conference time, the Applicant was again emailed and directed to contact Chambers on an urgent basis to attend the conference. Three attempts were made to telephone the Applicant (on the phone number he had recorded on his application) to connect him into the conference, the Applicant failed to pick up the phone on any of the calls. A voicemail was left after the first call. As such, the conference could not proceed.

Later on 28 March 2025, the Applicant was emailed stating that he had failed to attend the conference and had failed to contact Chambers, and as such the Commission was considering dismissing his matter for want of prosecution and therefore, he needed to urgently contact Chambers by the end of that day to respond. It was stated that the Respondent did attend the conference as scheduled. The Applicant did not contact Chambers.

Following the conference further attempts were made to contact the applicant; three calls were made to the Applicant; he did not pick up. A voicemail was left reiterating that he had not contacted Chambers and that the Commission was considering dismissing his matter for want of prosecution as he had not progressed his unfair dismissal application. It…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ryan Hawkins v Eastern States Framing

Details

AGLC: Ryan Hawkins v Eastern States Framing [2025] FWC 1325
Case: [2025] FWC 1325
Decision Date: 13 MAY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ryan Hawkins v Eastern States Framing, the applicant, Mr Ryan Hawkins, lodged an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) against his former employer, Eastern States Framing. The FWC was tasked with determining whether Mr Hawkins' dismissal was unfair, as claimed. However, the proceedings were complicated by Mr Hawkins' complete lack of engagement with the FWC, including failing to respond to multiple communications and missing scheduled conferences. The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Mr Hawkins' application could be dismissed for want of prosecution under section 587(3)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission considered various factors, including the principles from precedent cases such as Hoser v Hartcher and Resta v Myer Pty Ltd, which emphasised the need for caution in summarily dismissing applications. Despite this, the Commission concluded that Mr Hawkins' repeated failure to communicate or participate in the proceedings justified the dismissal of his application. Given his non-compliance with the Commission's directions and lack of response to numerous attempts to contact him, the Commission found that Mr Hawkins had effectively abandoned his application. Consequently, the application was dismissed for want of prosecution.

Orders