Shauni Snyder v Leo Muller Motors

[2016] FWC 3512

[2016] FWC 3512

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Shauni Snyder
v
Leo Muller Motors
(U2016/5719)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY MELBOURNE, 31 MAY 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 29 March 2016, Ms Shauni Snyder made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). Ms Snyder’s employment had been terminated by Leo Muller Motors on 11 March 2016.

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 11 May 2016 however it could not take place. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] Ms Snyder was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material she wished to rely on by noon, on 16 May 2016.

[4] On 18 May 2016, the Commission telephoned Ms Snyder to advise her submissions were overdue. Mr Snyder advised she would be sending an email requesting an extension to file her submissions.

[5] Ms Snyder did not comply with this direction and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before Deputy President Kovacic on 20 May 2016.

[6] Ms Snyder did not attend the non compliance hearing. Leo Muller Motors made an oral application, pursuant to s.399A of the Act, that the matter be dismissed as Ms Snyder had failed to comply with the direction of the Fair Work Commission. Deputy President Kovacic waived compliance with the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 and accepted Leo Muller Motors’ oral application.

[7] On 20 May 2016, Ms Snyder was sent correspondence informing her of Leo Muller Motors’ section 399A application. Ms Snyder was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of Leo Muller Motors’ application by close of business, on 27 May 2016. Ms Snyder was advised that if she failed to comply with this direction, her application would be dismissed.

[8] Ms Snyder did not file any material with the Commission.

[9] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

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.

....
(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] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[11] As Ms Snyder did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I will determine the application on the papers.

[12] As Ms Snyder has provided no explanation for her failure to comply with directions, I find that her failure was unreasonable.

[13] The power to dismiss an application if the non-compliance was unreasonable is discretionary. Ms Snyder has failed to respond to the many attempts by the Commission to contact her. She has shown no willingness to prosecute her case. In those circumstances, I will exercise my discretion and dismiss Ms Snyder’s application. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR581007>