Samuel Goggins v Northern Adelaide Local Health Network
[2024] FWC 1230
•10 MAY 2024
| [2024] FWC 1230 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Samuel Goggins
v
Northern Adelaide Local Health Network
(U2024/738)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 10 MAY 2024 |
Application for relief from unfair dismissal – not a national system employer – application dismissed.
On 23 January 2024, Mr Samuel Goggins (the Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Goggins named Northern Adelaide Local Health Network as the Respondent to his application (the Respondent).
On 23 January 2024, the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant via his nominated telephone number to discuss his application. Mr Goggins did not answer the call and there was no option to leave a voice message.
That same day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Goggin’s nominated email address advising him that, based on the information contained in his Form F2 – Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2), the Respondent may not be a national system employer and thus the Commission may not have the jurisdiction to deal with his matter. Mr Goggins was advised to urgently seek further advice on the issue. The correspondence also required Mr Goggins to advise the Commission within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application. The correspondence warned that his application may be dismissed if no response was received by Tuesday, 6 February 2024.
On 25 January 2024, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Goggins on his nominated telephone number to discuss his application. Mr Goggins did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting that Mr Goggins call the Commission as the Respondent appears not to be a National System Employer (NSE).
On 2 February 2024, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Goggins via his nominated telephone number to discuss the application further. Mr Goggins did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left informing Mr Goggins that the Respondent appeared not to be an NSE. Mr Goggins was advised to call the Commission.
On 19 February 2024, the Commission again attempted to contact Mr Goggins on his nominated telephone number. Mr Goggins did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left informing Mr Goggins that his matter was at risk of being dismissed if the Commission did not hear back from Mr Goggins by close of business that day.
On 8 April 2024, the Commission once again attempted to contact Mr Goggins and left a voicemail asking Mr Goggins to return the call.
On 18 April 2024, the Commission made a final attempt to contact Mr Goggins via his nominated telephone number to discuss the application. Mr Goggins did not answer the call and there was no option to leave a voicemail message. To date, Mr Goggins has not contacted the Commission or provided any further information.
The Respondent is a local health network, established under the Health Care Act 2008 (SA). Based on the available information I cannot by conclude that the Respondent is not an NSE.
Division 1 of Part 3-2 of the Act is concerned with the “unfair dismissal of national system employees, and the granting of remedies for unfair dismissal”. Further, s.380 of the Act provides that, under this Part, an “employee means a national system employee, and employer means a national system employer”. Based on the material before the Commission, neither Mr Goggins nor the Respondent appear to fall within the scope of these definitions. Certainly, there has been nothing submitted to the Commission by Mr Goggins to suggest the Respondent is an NSE.
In considering the provisions of the Act, and based on the material before the Commission, I am not persuaded that the Commission has jurisdiction to determine Mr Goggins’ remedy for unfair dismissal, on the basis that his employment does not appear to have been with a national system employer.
Section 587(1) of the Act provides as follows:
587 Dismissing applications
(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:
(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or
(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) the application has no reasonable prospect of success.
As I have determined that the Commission does not have jurisdiction, I am satisfied the application has no reasonable prospect of success. The application is therefore dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the Act. An Order[1] to this effect will be issued with this decision.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY
[1] PR774899.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR774898>
0
0
0