Wayne Frost v Woolworths Group Limited Summary

[2025] FWC 1658

The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 16 June 2025.

Footnote 3 has been changed to refer to PR787158, rather than PR787154.

Associate to Commissioner Ryan.

Dated 17 June 2025.

[2025] FWC 1658

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Wayne Frost
v

Woolworths Group Limited

(U2025/1113)

COMMISSIONER P RYAN

SYDNEY, 16 JUNE 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application dismissed pursuant to s.399A – procedural fairness not afforded – application to revoke dismissal decision

On Friday, 9 May 2025, I issued a decision[1] and order[2], dismissing an application made by Mr Frost for an unfair dismissal remedy. I dismissed the application pursuant to s.399A(1)(a) and (b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) as I was satisfied that Mr Frost had unreasonably failed to attend the conferences and hearings before the Commission and unreasonably failed to comply with directions of the Commission.

On Friday, 30 May 2025, Mr Frost sent correspondence to my Chambers stating:

Please accept my sincere apologies for missing the scheduled mediation appointments. Due to unforeseen circumstances and a full Gmail inbox, I believe some important emails may have bounced back or gone unnoticed.
Evidence of these issues can be provided, if needed.
Could you kindly let me know if there has been any outcome or next steps in my absence?
Thank you for your understanding.

On Monday, 2 June 2025, it was drawn to my attention that due to technological issues, the correspondence referred to at paragraph [8] of the 399A Decision was not delivered to the Applicant. The effect of this is that the Applicant was not aware of the s.399A application and not afforded an opportunity to respond to it.

On 3 June 2025, my Chambers sent correspondence to the parties advising them of these circumstances and referred to s.603 of the FW Act.

On 10 June 2025, the Applicant made an application pursuant to s.603 of the FW Act for the Commission to revoke the decision. Woolworths Group Limited does not oppose the application to revoke the 399A Decision.

Having regard to the circumstances set out above, I consider it appropriate to revoke the 399A Decision and Order issued on 9 May 2025. An Order [PR788233] revoking the 399A Decision and Order[3] is issued concurrently with this decision.

The consequence of this is that the application made by Woolworths Group Limited pursuant to s.399A remains to be determined. The parties will receive further directions regarding the progression of the matter in due course.

COMMISSIONER

[1] Wayne Frost v Woolworths Group Limited[2025] FWC 1288 (399A Decision).

[2] PR787158.

[3] PR787158.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wayne Frost v Woolworths Group Limited, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) was tasked with considering an application for an unfair dismissal remedy. The applicant, Mr Frost, had initially sought relief from the Commission, claiming that his dismissal was unfair. Woolworths Group Limited, the respondent, opposed the application. The Commission had initially dismissed Mr Frost's application under section 399A of the Fair Work Act 2009, citing procedural failures on Mr Frost's part, including his failure to attend scheduled conferences and hearings and to comply with Commission directions. Subsequently, it was discovered that Mr Frost had not been properly informed of the 399A application due to technological issues, thus he had not had a fair opportunity to respond.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether Mr Frost's application for an unfair dismissal remedy could be revived and whether the initial dismissal decision should be revoked. The central question was whether procedural fairness had been afforded to Mr Frost, given that he had not been properly notified of the 399A application. The Commission also had to consider whether the failure to inform Mr Frost constituted a breach of natural justice, warranting the revocation of the initial decision. Woolworths Group Limited did not oppose the application to revoke the dismissal decision.

The Commission found that procedural fairness had not been afforded to Mr Frost due to the technological issues that prevented him from receiving notice of the 399A application. Consequently, the initial decision dismissing the unfair dismissal application was revoked. The Commission emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and natural justice in legal proceedings, ensuring that all parties are properly informed and have an opportunity to respond. As a result, the dismissal decision was set aside, and the application for an unfair dismissal remedy remained to be determined, with further directions to be issued to the parties.

Wayne Frost v Woolworths Group Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established