Shyanne Woodward v The Trustee for Bell Family Trust

[2023] FWC 3365

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Shyanne Woodward
v

The Trustee For Bell Family Trust

(U2023/11298)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 15 DECEMBER 2023

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – incomplete application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

On 15 November 2023, Ms Shyanne Woodward (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 (FW Act).

The Form F2 – Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) filed by Ms Woodward was incomplete in that she did not provide the commencement date of her employment with The Trustee For Bell Family Trust (the Respondent), nor did she provide the date she was notified of dismissal or the effective date of dismissal.

On 20 November 2023, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Woodward on her nominated telephone number. As Ms Woodward did not answer the call, a voicemail message was left requesting that she contact the Commission to provide the outstanding information. Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Woodward’s nominated email address requesting that she provide a date for when she commenced employment and for when she was dismissed. That correspondence also advised Ms Woodward that if she did not provide the outstanding information within 14 days, her application may be dismissed. An SMS notification was also sent to Ms Woodward’s nominated telephone number, requesting that she contact the Commission.

As the required information was not received, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Woodward on her nominated telephone number on 5 December 2023. Ms Woodward did not answer the call and a voicemail was left advising her that she would need to contact the Commission by close of business on 6 December 2023, or her application may be dismissed. To date Ms Woodward has not replied to the Commission’s correspondence.

Section 587(1) of the FW 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.

In considering all the circumstances, I am satisfied that as the application form in question was incomplete and it has not been made in accordance with the Act. Given the absence of a completed Form F2, it is likely that there is no valid application before the Commission and no further action is required. A non-compliant application is directly contemplated by s.587(1)(a) of the Act.

Despite the attempts by the Commission to contact Ms Woodward, the reminders and multiple requests, she has not responded. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate in all the circumstances to dismiss the purported application. The application is dismissed. An Order[1] to this effect will be issued with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] PR769463.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this matter, Shyanne Woodward, sought a remedy for unfair dismissal against the Trustee for Bell Family Trust under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute arose from Ms Woodward's employment and subsequent dismissal, details of which were not fully provided in her application to the Fair Work Commission. The application, which was incomplete in several respects, including the omission of key dates related to her employment and dismissal, was made on 15 November 2023. The Commission made several attempts to contact Ms Woodward to obtain the missing information, but these efforts were unsuccessful.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether the application was sufficiently compliant with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 to proceed. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the application was incomplete to the extent that it could be dismissed under section 587 of the Act. The Commission considered whether the application was not made in accordance with the Act, was frivolous or vexatious, or had no reasonable prospect of success. Given the incompleteness of the application and the failure to respond to multiple communications from the Commission, the court was tasked with deciding whether the application could be dismissed.

The court found that the application was incomplete and did not comply with the Act, as required information was not provided despite multiple requests. The Commission's attempts to contact Ms Woodward and obtain the missing details were unsuccessful, leading to the conclusion that the application was not made in accordance with the Act. The court noted that despite reminders and multiple requests for the missing information, Ms Woodward did not respond. Consequently, the court determined that it was appropriate to dismiss the application under section 587(1)(a) of the Act, as the application was incomplete and did not meet the statutory requirements.

An order was issued dismissing the application for unfair dismissal, reflecting the decision made by the Fair Work Commission. The dismissal was based on the failure to provide complete and compliant information as required by the Fair Work Act 2009. The court's decision underscores the importance of providing all necessary details in applications to the Commission, and the consequences of failing to do so.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established