Wade Leonard v Albury Wodonga Volunteer Resource Bureau Inc

[2025] FWC 1257

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Wade Leonard
v

Albury Wodonga Volunteer Resource Bureau Inc

(U2025/2527)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN

MELBOURNE, 5 MAY 2025

Application under s 399A – failure to comply with directions – application granted

The following is an edited version of a decision delivered on transcript on 2 May 2025. Wade Leonard (applicant) has made an unfair dismissal application under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). On 4 April 2025, I issued directions that the applicant file an outline of argument, statements of evidence and a document list by 22 April 2025. He failed to do so. On 23 April 2025, I wrote to the applicant and noted that his materials were overdue. He did not reply. On 30 April 2025, I listed the matter for a non-compliance hearing on 2 May 2025. The same day, Albury Wodonga Volunteer Resource Bureau (respondent) made an application under s 399A for the unfair dismissal application to be dismissed, on the ground that the applicant had not complied with directions. I advised the parties that I would consider the s 399A application at the non-compliance hearing on 2 May 2025. The notice of listing stated that the parties were required to attend the non-compliance hearing and that s 600 of the Act allows the Commission to determine a matter in the absence of a person who was required to attend before it. The applicant failed to attend the non-compliance hearing.

Section 399A states that the Commission may dismiss an application if it is satisfied that the applicant in an unfair dismissal matter has unreasonably failed to attend a conference or hearing held by the Commission or has unreasonably failed to comply with a direction of the Commission relating to the application (s 399A(1)(a) and (b)). The applicant failed to comply with my directions of 4 April 2025. He has now also failed to attend the non-compliance hearing despite being required to do so. The applicant has provided no explanation for these failings. I conclude that they were unreasonable. The discretion in s 399A is enlivened. It is appropriate to exercise it. The applicant has failed to engage with his own application. A further discretionary consideration is that the applicant’s contention that he was forced to resign appears to be manifestly unsubstantiated. The application is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

No appearance for the applicant
D. Hargreave and R. Pattison for the respondent

Hearing details:

2025
Melbourne (by Microsoft Teams)
2 May

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR787027

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application for unfair dismissal brought by Wade Leonard against Albury Wodonga Volunteer Resource Bureau Inc. The dispute centred on Leonard's claim that his dismissal was unfair. The Commission was required to decide whether Leonard's failure to comply with procedural directions and his absence from a scheduled non-compliance hearing warranted the dismissal of his application.

The legal issues in this matter were whether Leonard had unreasonably failed to comply with directions and whether his failure to attend the non-compliance hearing was also unreasonable. Under section 399A of the Fair Work Act 2009, the Commission has the authority to dismiss an application if the applicant has unreasonably failed to comply with a direction or has unreasonably failed to attend a hearing. The Commission needed to determine if Leonard's actions met the criteria for unreasonableness and whether exercising the discretion to dismiss the application was appropriate.

The Commission found that Leonard had unreasonably failed to comply with the directions to file necessary documents by the specified date and had not provided any explanation for his non-compliance. Furthermore, Leonard failed to attend the non-compliance hearing despite being required to do so. The Commission noted that Leonard had not engaged with his application and provided no justification for his absence. Given these circumstances, the Commission concluded that it was appropriate to exercise its discretion under section 399A and dismiss Leonard's unfair dismissal application. The Commission also observed that Leonard's claim of forced resignation appeared to be unsubstantiated.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established