Steven Rockemer v Alice Springs Town Council

[2017] FWC 3471

[2017] FWC 3471

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Steven Rockemer
v
Alice Springs Town Council
(U2017/4140)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT MELBOURNE, 30 JUNE 2017

Application for relief from unfair dismissal- dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

Background

[1] On 18 April 2017 Mr Steven Rockemer made an application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) seeking relief from unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). Mr Rockemer was employed by Alice Springs Town Council. His employment was terminated on 29 March 2017.

[2] The matter was the subject of conciliation where it was not resolved. Consequently directions were issued which required Mr Rockemer to file and serve his submissions, documents and witness evidence with respect to his application by 4.00 pm Thursday 22 June 2017. Mr Rockemer failed to comply with this direction.

[3] The Commission wrote to Mr Rockemer on 23 June 2017 regarding his failure to file submissions by the required date. Mr Rockemer failed to respond to the Commission’s correspondence.

[4] On 26 June 2017 my Associate attempted to phone Mr Rockemer on the mobile telephone number provided in his application. A voicemail message was left requesting Mr Rockemer to call the Commission urgently to advise if he intended to file submissions and whether he wished to proceed with his application. Mr Rockemer has failed to respond to the voicemail message.

[5] On 27 June 2017 further correspondence was sent to Mr Rockemer requiring him to advise the Commission by close of business Wednesday 28 June 2017 whether he wished to proceed with his application and that should he fail to contact the Commission his application may be dismissed. Mr Rockemer once again failed to respond to the Commissions’ correspondence.

[6] After the attempts to contact Mr Rockemer and the lack of response from him, I am satisfied that Mr Rockemer does not intend to pursue his s.394 application.

Legislation

[7] Section 587 of the FW Act states:

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.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3-2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the 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) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

Consideration

[8] Section 587(3) of the FW Act allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative.

[9] Section 587(1) of the FW Act does not operate to limit the grounds on which the Commission may dismiss a matter.

[10] Mr Rockemer has been provided with three opportunities to respond to directions of the Commission. He has failed to do so on these occasions. Attempts to contact Mr Rockemer by telephone have been unsuccessful.

[11] After considering all of the circumstances I have decided that the application should be dismissed pursuant to s.587 of the FW Act because of a failure of Mr Rockemer to comply with the directions of the Commission.

[12] The application for unfair dismissal remedy is therefore dismissed. An order 1 to this effect will be issued with this decision

COMMISSIONER

 1   PR594170.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR594166>