1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.365—General protections Frederick Tzeegankoff v Queensland Corrective Services (C2023/7385) COMMISSIONER HUNT BRISBANE, 15 JANUARY 2024 Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal [1] On 27 November 2023, Mr Frederick Tzeegankoff has made a claim pursuant to s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) alleging that he was dismissed by Queensland Corrective Services (the Respondent) in contravention of the general protection provisions of the Act. [2] In the Form F8A, the Respondent raised two jurisdictional objections. The first objection is that the Respondent was not Mr Tzeegankoff’s employer as Mr Tzeegankoff was employed by a labour hire company, Paxus Australia Pty Ltd (Paxus). The second objection is that in the event the Respondent was Mr Tzeegankoff’s employer, it is not a National System Employer. Accordingly, the Respondent asserted Mr Tzeegankoff’s application cannot succeed. [3] In correspondence issued to the parties by my chambers on 21 December 2023, I requested Mr Tzeegankoff advise which entity he was employed by. I indicated that in the circumstance the Respondent was the employer, then my preliminary view is that the Respondent is not covered by the Act, and as such, the Commission does not have jurisdiction to issue Mr Tzeegankoff a certificate so that he may pursue the matter in a Court of competent jurisdiction. However, in the circumstance his employer is Paxus, then I indicated Mr Tzeegankoff would need to demonstrate that he has been dismissed by his employer. [4] Accordingly, I directed Mr Tzeegankoff to respond to Chambers’ email in respect to my preliminary views and the jurisdictional objections by no later than 3 January 2024. [5] Mr Tzeegankoff did not reply by 3 January 2024 and did not seek an extension. On 4 January 2024, I directed Mr Tzeegankoff to respond by no later than 8 January 2024. Mr Tzeegankoff was informed that failure to provide a response may result in his application being dismissed for want of prosecution, in accordance with s.587 of the Act. [6] Mr Tzeegankoff failed to correspondence with chambers. [7] Section 587 of the Act provides as follows: [2024] FWC 87 DECISION [2024] FWC 87 2 “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. Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A. (2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the 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) The FWC may dismiss an application: (a) on its own initiative; or (b) on application.” [8] After considering the time afforded to Mr Tzeegankoff to provide a response in respect to the jurisdictional objections and my preliminary view, I have decided to dismiss the application pursuant to s.587(1)(c) of the Act. I do so at the Commission’s initiative pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act. Mr Tzeegankoff has demonstrated an unwillingness to prosecute his own application and consequently I find that the application has no reasonable prospects of success. [9] An Order to this effect will be issued with this decision. COMMISSIONER Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR770174>