s.394 - Unfair dismissal

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - dismissal under s.587(1)(c) at the Commission's initiative for want of prosecution.

• [1] On 7 November 2024, Mr Jeremy Roy Peterson made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

• [2] The Form F3 response raised a concern about whether Mr Peterson had served the Minimum Employment Period under sections 382 and 383 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

• [3] Commission staff tried to contact Mr Peterson on 4 February and 18 February 2025 about this concern.

• [4] Mr Peterson responded on 6 February 2025 to the Commission's correspondence, however he did not provide any additional relevant information regarding whether he had served the minimum employment period.

• [5] 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]).

• [6] I am satisfied that Mr Peterson 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 Peterson's application. I make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Jeremy Roy Peterson on 7 November 2024 is dismissed.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer