Themi Roumeliotis v PCD Sleepers Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 396

[2025] FWC 396

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION and ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Themi Roumeliotis
v

PCD Sleepers Pty Ltd

(U2024/12293)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON SYDNEY, 11 FEBRUARY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – lack of prosecution – dismissal under s.587(3)(a) at the Commission’s initiative - application has no reasonable prospects of success.

1. On 15 October 2024, Mr Themi Roumeliotis made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

1. A conciliation conference was scheduled on 12 November 2024, Mr Roumeliotis did not attend at the listed time, however he did eventually return the conciliator’s call and told the conciliator that he was unable to participate because of a family emergency.

1. A second conciliation conference was scheduled for 9 December 2024, Mr Roumeliotis did not attend.

1. Since then Mr Roumelitos has not responded to any of the Commission’s attempts to contact him.

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.

…

(3)       The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a)       on its own initiative; or

(b)       on application.”

1. The words, “Without limiting when the 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).

1. Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application if it is apparent that the applicant has stopped pursuing or participating in the proceedings they commenced. In such circumstances, the Commission is not required to persevere with the application (see Viavattene v Health Care Australia [2013] FWCFB 2532 at [39]).

1. In these circumstances I am satisfied that the facility under s.587(3)(a) can and should be engaged to dismiss Mr Roumeliotis’ application.

1. Mr Roumeliotis has been on notice of the likely consequences for his application if he does not respond. to the Commission’s inquiry. It is quite possible that he has abandoned his application.

1. For these reasons I have decided to dismiss Mr Roumeliotis’ application for want of prosecution and make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Roumeliotis on 15 October 2024 is dismissed

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR784232>