Steven Richardson v Southern Cross Care (WA) Inc

[2014] FWC 676

[2014] FWC 676

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Steven Richardson
v
Southern Cross Care (WA) Inc
(U2013/13061)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS PERTH, 29 JANUARY 2014

Termination of employment.

[1] This matter involves an application made by Mr Steven Richardson (the applicant) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. The respondent is Southern Cross Care (WA) Inc.

[2] The application was the subject of a conference with a Fair Work Commission conciliator however the matter was not resolved and so has been referred for determination.

[3] The applicant has advised that he wishes to proceed with his application.

[4] Further correspondence was sent to the applicant by email and post on 5 November 2013 notifying of the hearing date and with directions to both parties.

[5] The applicant was directed to provide his written materials in support of his application by 9 January 2013. Nothing was received from the applicant by this date.

[6] A further letter was posted and emailed to the applicant on 14 January 2014 regarding his failure to comply with the Commission’s direction and directing him to provide his material by 23 January 2014 and advising a further failure to comply would be grounds for his application to be dismissed.

[7] As at the date of this decision the applicant has not filed any materials as directed nor contacted the Commission.

The legislation

[8] Section 577 of the Act obliges the Commission to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is fair, just and is quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities and is open and transparent and promotes harmonious and cooperative workplace relations.

[9] Further section 578 of the Act relevantly requires that in performing functions or exercising powers in relation to a matter the Commission must take into account the Objects of the relevant Part of the Act.

[10] A section 394 application falls under Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal of the Act.

[11] The Objects of Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal are prescribed in section 381 of the Act. These Objects include the establishment of procedures dealing with unfair dismissal that are quick, flexible and informal and address the needs of employers and employees and involve procedures and remedies that ensure a “fair go all around” is accorded to both the employer and employee concerned.

[12] Section 587 (3) of the Act empowers the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative.

Decision

[13] In this case the applicant has failed to comply with the Commission’s directions and was on notice that non-compliance would be grounds for the application to be dismissed.

[14] The respondent employer is entitled to a fair go including having the claim made against them determined within a reasonable time.

[15] The applicant in the circumstances here has been given a fair go.

[16] Consequently my decision is that this application for an unfair dismissal remedy should now dismissed on the initiative of the Commission under section 587 (3) of the Act.

[17] An order to this effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR547220>