Siobhan Bunney v BHP Minerals Pty Ltd

Case [2023] FWC 1520


[2023] FWC 1520

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Siobhan Bunney
v

BHP Minerals Pty Ltd

(U2023/5083)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 26 JUNE 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

  1. Siobhan Bunney (the applicant) was employed by BHP Minerals Pty Ltd (the respondent), and she was allegedly dismissed on the 17th of May 2023.

  1. On the 8th of June 2023, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

  2. The application was lodged 1 day out of time.

  3. On the 14th of June 2023, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the matter being lodged out of time and she was required to respond by the 19th of June 2023.

  4. On the 20th of June 2023, further correspondence was sent to the applicant directing her to provide a response by 5:00pm on the 22nd of June 2023. She was advised that in the absence of a reply, her application may be dismissed.

  5. The applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence that my Chambers has sent to this date.

  1. Section 587 of the Act provides:

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 prospects of success.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

  1. The words, “Without limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act, establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

  1. In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

  1. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR763558>

Details
AGLC
Siobhan Bunney v BHP Minerals Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 1520
Case
[2023] FWC 1520
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Siobhan Bunney has applied to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal by her former employer, BHP Minerals Pty Ltd. The application was lodged one day outside the prescribed time limit, and despite multiple opportunities to respond to correspondence from the Commission, Ms Bunney has not provided any response. The Vice President was required to decide whether the application could be dismissed for being out of time and for want of prosecution. The Act provides that the Commission has a broad discretion to dismiss an application where it is not made in accordance with the Act, or is frivolous or vexatious, or has no reasonable prospects of success. The Vice President decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution, as Ms Bunney had not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence. The Vice President noted that the dismissal was pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act, meaning it was done on the initiative of the Commission. An order dismissing the application will issue with this decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.