Wayne Baillie v State Wide Quality Services

[2020] FWC 169

[2020] FWC 169

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Wayne Baillie
v
State Wide Quality Services
(U2019/12413)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI SYDNEY, 20 JANUARY 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] Wayne Baillie states he was employed by ‘State Wide Quality Services’ from 1 March 2017 until his dismissal took effect on 23 October 2019. On 7 November 2019, he applied to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] On 11 December 2019, Statewide Quality Admin Pty Ltd (the Respondent) filed an Employer’s Response (Form F3), objecting to Mr Baillie’s application on the basis that he had not completed the minimum employment period to be eligible for an unfair dismissal remedy. The Respondent said that Mr Baillie only started working for it on 19 August 2019, and that his dismissal took effect on 20 October 2019.

[3] The matter was referred to me to determine the jurisdictional objection. My chambers sent correspondence to Mr Baillie on 30 December 2019, requiring him to provide a statement to support his claim that he had completed the minimum employment period. He was asked to provide this information by 4:00 pm on 7 January 2020. However, we received no response from Mr Baillie by that time.

[4] On 8 January 2020, my chambers sent further correspondence to Mr Baillie, directing him to provide a response by 4:00 pm on 10 January 2020. He was advised that in the absence of a reply, his application may be dismissed.

[5] To date, Mr Baillie 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.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3-2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the 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) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

[7] The words, “[w]ithout 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.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR715877>