William Aldrick v Premier Services Group Aust & Nz

[2023] FWC 2311

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

William Aldrick
v

Premier Services Group Aust & Nz

(U2023/5680)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

William Aldrick (the applicant) began employment with Premier Services Group Aust & Nz (the respondent) on the 11^th of January 2022 and he was allegedly dismissed on the 5^th of June 2023.
On the 26^th of June 2023, the applicant made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
The legal business name nominated by the respondent in their F3 – Employer’s Response Form in this matter was Premier Services Group Aust & NZ Pty Ltd.
On the 15^th of August 2023, correspondence was sent to the applicant in relation to the legal business name discrepancy and he was required to respond by the 22^nd of August 2023. No response was received at this time.
Further correspondence was sent to the applicant on the 29^th of August 2023. He was required to respond to this correspondence by 5:00pm the 1^st of September 2023. It was in this correspondence that the applicant was advised his matter would be dismissed without further notice, should my chambers not receive a response.
To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the correspondence sent by my Chambers.

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.

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).

In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

William Aldrick, the applicant, sought an unfair dismissal remedy against Premier Services Group Aust & Nz, the respondent, under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant, who commenced employment with the respondent on 11 January 2022, claimed that he was dismissed on 5 June 2023. He filed his application for remedy on 26 June 2023. However, there was an issue regarding the respondent's legal business name, which was raised on 15 August 2023. The applicant did not respond to this correspondence, nor to subsequent correspondence sent on 29 August 2023, which warned that his matter would be dismissed without further notice if no response was received by 1 September 2023. To date, the applicant has not responded to any correspondence sent by the Fair Work Commission.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's failure to respond to correspondence regarding the legal business name discrepancy, and his subsequent failure to respond to warnings of dismissal, warranted the dismissal of his application under section 587 of the Act. The court had to consider whether the application was being pursued in good faith and whether it had reasonable prospects of success. The applicant's silence and non-compliance with the Commission's requests for information played a significant role in the court's deliberations.

The Fair Work Commission found that the applicant's lack of response to correspondence and warnings amounted to a failure to prosecute his application. The court relied on section 587(3)(a) of the Act, which allows the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative if it deems fit. The court concluded that the applicant's failure to engage with the proceedings, despite multiple opportunities to do so, indicated that his application was not being pursued in good faith and had no reasonable prospects of success. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for want of prosecution.

The Fair Work Commission issued an order dismissing the applicant's unfair dismissal remedy application for want of prosecution. The court's decision underscores the importance of timely and responsive engagement in legal proceedings before the Commission.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established