Zachary Matthews v BRS Operations Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 2017

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Zachary Matthews
v

BRS Operations Pty Ltd

(U2025/4791)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 14 JULY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative for want of prosecution.

On 22 April 2025, Mr Zachary Matthews made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Mr Matthews did not attend a telephone conciliation conference scheduled for 21 May 2025.

Commission staff tried to contact Mr Matthews on 21 May and 5 June 2025 about whether he wants to continue his unfair dismissal claim. Mr Matthews has not responded to the Commission’s correspondence.

Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative in the early stages of the proceedings for want of prosecution. If an applicant’s conduct or omissions show that they are no longer willing to participate in their own case the Commission is not required to persevere with the application (see Viavattene v Health Care Australia [2013] FWCFB 2532 at [39]).

I am satisfied that Mr Matthews has had the opportunity to put a case for consideration on all matters material to the decision to dismiss the application under s.587. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the facility under s.587 can and should be engaged to dismiss Mr Matthews’ application. I make the following order:

A.The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Zachary Matthews on 22 April 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zachary Matthews filed an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) on 22 April 2025. He did not attend a scheduled telephone conciliation conference on 21 May 2025, and despite attempts by Commission staff to contact him on 21 May and 5 June 2025, he did not respond to any correspondence. The Deputy President, Easton, presided over the case in Sydney on 14 July 2025. The legal issue before the court was whether the application could be dismissed for want of prosecution under section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). This section allows the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative in the early stages of the proceedings if the applicant’s conduct or omissions indicate they are no longer willing to participate in their own case.

The Deputy President found that Mr Matthews had had the opportunity to present his case on all matters relevant to the decision to dismiss the application under section 587. Given that Mr Matthews did not respond to the Commission’s correspondence and did not attend the conciliation conference, the Deputy President was satisfied that Mr Matthews had ceased to participate in the proceedings. Therefore, the Deputy President concluded that the facility under section 587 could be engaged to dismiss the application. The Deputy President ordered that the application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Zachary Matthews on 22 April 2025 be dismissed.

Zachary Matthews v BRS Operations Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established