Suzanne Rajput v Goodstart Early Learning

[2023] FWC 2054

[2023] FWC 2054

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Suzanne Rajput
v

Goodstart Early Learning

(U2023/4992)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI SYDNEY, 17 AUGUST 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

1. Suzanne Rajput (the applicant) was employed by Goodstart Early Learning (the respondent) from the 15^th of July 2019 through to the 23^rd of September 2022, when she was allegedly dismissed.

1. On the 7^th 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 236 days out of time.
   
   

3. On the 25^th of July 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 28^th of July 2023. No response was received at this time.
   
   

4. On the 1^st of August 2023, further correspondence was sent to the applicant directing her to provide a response by 5:00pm on the 3^rd of August 2023. She was advised in this correspondence 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

<PR765277>