s.394 - Unfair dismissal

Application under s 399A - failure to comply with directions - application granted

• [1] The following is an edited version of a decision delivered on transcript on 2 May 2025. Wade Leonard (applicant) has made an unfair dismissal application under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). On 4 April 2025, I issued directions that the applicant file an outline of argument, statements of evidence and a document list by 22 April 2025. He failed to do so. On 23 April 2025, I wrote to the applicant and noted that his materials were overdue. He did not reply. On 30 April 2025, I listed the matter for a non-compliance hearing on 2 May 2025. The same day, Albury Wodonga Volunteer Resource Bureau (respondent) made an application under s 399A for the unfair dismissal application to be dismissed, on the ground that the applicant had not complied with directions. I advised the parties that I would consider the s 399A application at the non-compliance hearing on 2 May 2025. The notice of listing stated that the parties were required to attend the non-compliance hearing and that s 600 of the Act allows the Commission to determine a matter in the absence of a person who was required to attend before it. The applicant failed to attend the non-compliance hearing.

• [2] Section 399A states that the Commission may dismiss an application if it is satisfied that the applicant in an unfair dismissal matter has unreasonably failed to attend a conference or hearing held by the Commission or has unreasonably failed to comply with a direction of the Commission relating to the application (s 399A(1)(a) and (b)). The applicant failed to comply with my directions of 4 April 2025. He has now also failed to attend the non-compliance hearing despite being required to do so. The applicant has provided no explanation for these failings. I conclude that they were unreasonable. The discretion in s 399A is enlivened. It is appropriate to exercise it. The applicant has failed to engage with his own application. A further discretionary consideration is that the applicant's contention that he was forced to resign appears to be manifestly unsubstantiated. The application is dismissed.

D. Hargreave and R. Pattison for the respondent

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer