1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394—Unfair dismissal Stuart Hunt v Tamworth Shoppingworld (U2025/10357) DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON SYDNEY, 3 SEPTEMBER 2025 Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative - application has no reasonable prospects of success. [1] On 20 June 2025, Mr Stuart Hunt made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The application named “Tamworth Shoppingworld” as the Respondent and includes the following claims: “I was working for Woolies as a trolley pusher and then been harassed by center management and the workers over the time me working there they tried banning me before and got lifted and this time I got a letter with faults information and tried calling and got hang up on there want let me have my say which in return as made me lose my job because I’m not allowed at my place of work.” [2] The applicant sought the following outcome from his unfair dismissal application against Tamworth Shoppingworld: “Banned to be lifted to get my job back.” [3] The Form F3 response filed by Tamworth Shoppingworld raised a jurisdiction objection: that Mr Hunt was not an employee of Tamworth Shoppingworld and that he was employed by Woolworths at their premises. Tamworth Shoppingworld also indicated that they had banned Mr Hunt from their premises due to abusive and aggressive behaviour. [4] It is very important at the beginning of an unfair dismissal claim that the correct employer is identified. An unfair dismissal application can only be lodged against the entity that employed the employee. [5] On 2 September 2025 my Chambers sent correspondence to Mr Hunt raising a concern about whether the correct employer was named in Mr Hunt’s unfair dismissal application. The correspondence invited Mr Hunt to provide submissions about the identity of his employer and the legal basis upon which his unfair dismissal application against Tamworth Shoppingworld could continue. [2025] FWC 2609 DECISION AND ORDER [2025] FWC 2609 2 [6] Mr Hunt responded, however did not provide any additional relevant information regarding the identity of his former employer. Mr Hunt asked that a member of the Commission’s staff call him regarding the matter. [7] On 3 September 2025 a Commission staff member telephoned Mr Hunt. Mr Hunt confirmed that he was previously employed by Woolworths. When told that he cannot pursue an unfair dismissal claim against an entity that was not his employer he replied “I don’t give a fuck, why don’t you do your fucking job and investigate these people?” and hung up shortly thereafter. [8] Mr Hunt has been on notice of the likely consequences if he does not provide further information that supports his eligibility to make the application. Section 587 – General Principles [9] Each applicant must be given a fair opportunity to show that their application does in fact have some reasonable prospects of success. [10] Section 587 allows the Commission to dismiss an application on the Commission’s own initiative in the early stages of the proceedings. Protracted proceedings can be avoided when there is no reasonable prospect of an outcome other than the dismissal of the application. [11] The power under s.587 should be used with caution, particularly if the matter involves complex questions of fact or law (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [11]-[16] (Bond)). An application should not be dismissed under s.587 unless it is very clear that there are no reasonable prospects of success. As such the power under s.587 is not available if there are disputed facts that could affect the outcome of the proceedings. Does Mr Hunt’s application have any reasonable prospects of success? [12] Upon first inspection Mr Hunt’s application did not appear to have any prospects of success. [13] The information provided by Mr Hunt on his Form F2 application, as confirmed in the telephone call, establish that he is not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because he was not, and does not claim to have been, an employee of Tamworth Shoppingworld. [14] When Commission staff raised concerns about the correctness of the application, Mr Hunt was afforded procedural fairness, as well as courtesy and respect. However a member of staff was abused by Mr Hunt merely for doing her job. It is not ever acceptable for Commission staff to be abused. [2025] FWC 2609 3 [15] Enough resources have been spent on dealing with Mr Hunt’s erroneous claim. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the facility under s.587 can and should be engaged to dismiss Mr Hunt’s application. I make the following order: A. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Stuart Hunt on 20 June 2025 is dismissed. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR791397>