Steven Taylor v Suez/Proskips

[2021] FWC 6176

[2021] FWC 6176

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Steven Taylor
v
Suez/Proskips
(U2021/7407)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI SYDNEY, 22 OCTOBER 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

[1] On 18 August 2021, Steven Taylor made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The applicant says he was employed by “Suez/Proskips” from 9 December 2019 until his dismissal on 12 August 2021.

[2] On 6 September 2021, SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd T/A Pro Skips filed an Employers Response (form F3) raising a jurisdictional objection on the basis that Mr Taylor was not an employee of the company and but was an employee of Randstad.

[3] My chambers sent correspondence to Mr Taylor on 1 October 2021 requiring him to provide a statement outlining the reasons why he believed he was employed by “Suez/Proskips”. He was asked to provide the information by no later than 4:00pm on 8 October 2021. A response was not received from Mr Taylor.

[4] On 11 October 2021, further correspondence was sent to Mr Taylor directing him to provide a response by 4:00pm on 14 October 2021. He was advised that in the absence of a reply his application may be dismissed.

[5] To date, Mr Taylor has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

[6] 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.

[7] 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).

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

[9] An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR735117>