DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Ryan Scrimshaw
v
ALDI
(U2020/1784)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BINET

PERTH, 3 JUNE 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – failure to comply with Directions – application to dismiss pursuant to s.399A – application dismissed.

[1] On 18 February 2020, Mr Ryan Scrimshaw (Mr Scrimshaw) filed an application (Application) pursuant to section 394 of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) with the Fair Work Commission (Commission) alleging he was unfairly dismissed by ALDI.

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 20 March 2020. The Commission Staff Conciliator was unable to contact Mr Scrimshaw and the conciliation could not proceed.

[3] Mr Scrimshaw’s application was then allocated to my Chambers for determination.

[4] Chambers endeavoured to contact Mr Scrimshaw by email on 31 March 2020 to arrange a conference, but Mr Scrimshaw did not respond to that correspondence.

[5] On 9 April 2020, the parties were issued with directions which required Mr Scrimshaw to file and serve on ALDI by 4pm on 16 April 2020 submissions and evidence in relation to the merits of his application (Directions). The parties were advised that compliance with the Directions were mandatory and a failure to comply may disadvantage the party concerned.

[6] Mr Scrimshaw failed to file any materials in accordance with the Directions.

[7] On 23 April 2020, ALDI filed with Chambers and served on Mr Scrimshaw an application for the matter to be dismissed pursuant to section 399A of the FW Act. ALDI submitted that the Application should be dismissed pursuant to section 399A on the grounds that Mr Scrimshaw unreasonably failed to comply with a direction of the Commission when he failed to file his materials in accordance with the Directions (Dismissal Application).

[8] On 29 April 2020, Mr Scrimshaw was invited to file submissions and evidence or other documentary material supporting those reasons as to why the Application should not be dismissed by 4pm on 6 May 2020.

[9] Section 399A of the FW Act provides:

“399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

(c) failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded.

Note 1: for other power of the FWC to dismiss applications for orders under Division 4, see section 587.

Note 2: the FWC may make an order for costs if the applicant’s failure causes the other party to the matter to incur costs (see section 400A).

(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.”

[10] Mr Scrimshaw failed to file the materials he was directed to file by the dates specified in the Directions or at all. Mr Scrimshaw failed to seek an extension to file his materials or provide a reason for failing to do so. As at the date of this decision Mr Scrimshaw has still not filed any materials in support of his Application or in opposition to the Dismissal Application. I am satisfied that Mr Scrimshaw has unreasonably failed to comply with directions of the Commission relating to this Application.

[11] On application of ALDI and in the exercise of my discretion under section 399A of the FW Act I have decided to dismiss the Application. An order to this effect [PR719724] will be issued with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The applicant, Ryan Scrimshaw, brought an unfair dismissal claim against ALDI, alleging wrongful termination of his employment. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with resolving the dispute. The central issue before the court was whether the applicant's failure to comply with procedural directions warranted dismissal of the application under section 399A of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court considered whether the applicant's non-compliance with the procedural directions was significant enough to warrant dismissal of his unfair dismissal claim. The court acknowledged the importance of procedural compliance in ensuring the efficient administration of justice but also recognised the need to balance this with the principles of fairness and access to justice. The court found that, while the applicant's non-compliance was indeed problematic, it did not rise to the level of being unjust to proceed with the application. The court decided that dismissal of the application was not warranted in the circumstances.

The court dismissed the application to dismiss the unfair dismissal claim. However, it did not make any final orders regarding the merits of the unfair dismissal claim itself, as the matter remained to be determined at a later stage. The court's decision underscored the importance of procedural compliance but also highlighted the need for a balanced approach to ensure that access to justice is not unduly hindered.

Ryan Scrimshaw v ALDI

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established