Stephen Davies v Greenlip Enterprises Pty Ltd T/A Airborne Solutions, Darwin Helicopter Tours, Brisk Contracting

[2016] FWC 6046

[2016] FWC 6046

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Stephen Davies
v
Greenlip Enterprises Pty Ltd T/A Airborne Solutions, Darwin Helicopter Tours, Brisk Contracting
(U2016/2646)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT MELBOURNE, 25 AUGUST 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 6 July 2016 the Commission issued directions in the above matter. Those directions required that:

● Mr Stephen Davies (the Applicant) file and serve his material by 3 August 2016.

● Greenlip Enterprises Pty Ltd T/A Airborne Solutions, Darwin Helicopter Tours, Brisk Contracting (the Respondent) file and serve its material by 31 August 2016.

● The Applicant file and serve evidence in reply by 13 September 2016.

[2] In filing his material the Applicant indicated that he did not wish to file any submissions at that time and wished to receive the Respondent’s evidence before doing so.

[3] The Applicant did file witness statements on 3 August 2016 in accordance with the directions issued and filed a further witness statement on 8 August 2016. In advising on 3 August 2016 that he anticipated a further witness statement would be filed the next day, the Applicant indicated that he did not anticipate that this would cause any prejudice to the Respondent as it had until 31 August 2016 to file its material. That witness statement was filed with the Commission on 8 August 2016.

[4] On 24 August 2016, the Commission received a request from the Respondent for an extension of time within which to file its material in accordance with the directions on the grounds that:

● The Respondent did not receive the final witness statement from the Applicant until 8 August 2016;

● On 22 August 2016, the Respondent received ‘additional evidence of the Applicant going to the question of abandonment of employment…’, a matter on which it was on notice through the Form F3 filed by the Respondent;

● On 22 August 2016, the Respondent received advice that the Applicant intended to dispute an issue related to the Applicant’s salary with no prior notice.

[5] The Applicant objects to any extension being granted to the Respondent as it says the material provided by him on 22 August 2016 ‘would have been provided as evidence in reply’ and it would be prejudiced because evidence in reply is due on 13 September and ‘more delays will result in a reduced period for conciliation…’

[6] I have considered the submissions of both parties on this matter.

[7] The Commission has not had filed with it any further material from the Applicant. Any correspondence from the Applicant to the Respondent of 22 August 2016 is a matter between the parties.

[8] I am aware of the extended time until the hearing date. I do not consider that any extension of time to the Respondent will prejudice either party. A commensurate alteration to the filing date for the Applicant will ensure no disadvantage. In this respect the Applicant is reminded that the material it is to file is in reply to the evidence filed by the Respondent. Evidence in reply going to material not filed by the Respondent may be outside the directions issued and may be subject to objection to it being admitted during hearing.

[9] I am not convinced that the extension sought by the Applicant will prejudice the capacity of the parties to enter into further discussions with a view to settling the matter.

[10] The directions issued on 6 July 2016 are hereby amended as follows:

1. The Respondent is required to file with the Commission and serve on the Applicant any evidence or other material on which it intends to rely by close of business Wednesday 7 September 2016.

2. The Applicant is to file with the Commission and serve on the Respondent any evidence in reply by close of business Tuesday 20 September 2016.

[11] The hearing dates remain as they are.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR584669>