Tanya Hallet v King's Christian College

[2022] FWC 1030

[2022] FWC 1030

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Tanya Hallet
v

King’s Christian College

(U2022/1665)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI SYDNEY, 6 MAY 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

1. Tanya Hallet was employed by King’s Christian College from some time in 2018 until she was dismissed on the 17^th of January 2022.

1. On the 8^th of February 2022, Tanya Hallet made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application was lodged 1 day outside the 21 day period prescribed by s.394(2) of the Act.

1. On the 1^st of March 2022, King’s Christian College advised the Fair Work Commission that they will not lodge an F3 Employer’s Response Form until we decided on whether an extension of time should be granted for this application or not.

1. This matter has not reached conciliation stage and as such, was never allocated past my chambers.

1. The matter was referred to me to determine the jurisdictional objection. Correspondence was sent to Tanya Hallet on the 28^th of February 2022 requiring her to provide a statement in support of the granting of an extension of time for the late lodgement of her application. We asked her to provide the information by no later than 5:00pm on the 3^rd of March 2022. No response was received from Tanya Hallet. 

1. On the 4^th of March 2022, further correspondence was sent to Tanya Hallet directing her to provide a response by 5:00pm on the 8^th of March 2022. She was advised that in the absence of a reply his application may be dismissed.

1. To date, Tanya Hallet has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

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

<PR741237>