1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy William Bowden v Raymond Mizzi (U2026/3033) DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT PERTH, 10 JUNE 2026 Application for an unfair dismissal remedy — dismissal under s 587(3)(a) for want of prosecution [1] On 29 January 2026, William Bowden (Applicant) lodged an unfair dismissal application (Application) under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) alleging that they were unfairly dismissed by Raymond Mizzi (Respondent). [2] On 17 February 2026, the Applicant and Respondent were sent a notice of listing for a conciliation conference to be conducted by Microsoft Teams before one of the Commission’s staff conciliators. The notice of listing detailed that the conciliation conference would occur at 9:15 AM Newcastle time on 10 March 2026 and provided a Microsoft Teams link for accessing the conciliation conference. The notice of listing also contained information about adjournment requests and provided a telephone number which parties could call in the event of any technical difficulties. [3] On 5 March 2026, Commission staff sent the Applicant and Respondent an email reminding them that the conciliation conference was scheduled in five days’ time. [4] On 9 March 2026, the Applicant was sent an SMS reminder with respect to the conciliation conference. [5] The Applicant did not attend the conciliation conference scheduled for 10 March 2026. The Applicant did not contact the Commission before, during or after the conference to seek an adjournment, alert the Commission to any technical difficulties, or explain their non- attendance. [6] On 31 March 2026, the Applicant and Respondent were sent a second notice of listing for a conciliation conference to be conducted by Microsoft Teams before one of the Commission’s staff conciliators. The notice of listing detailed that the second conciliation conference would occur at 9:15 AM Newcastle time on 21 April 2026 and provided a Microsoft Teams link for accessing the conciliation conference. The notice of listing again contained [2026] FWC 2125 DECISION AND ORDER [2026] FWC 2125 2 information about adjournment requests and provided a telephone number which parties could call in the event of any technical difficulties. [7] On 16 April 2026, Commission staff sent the Applicant and Respondent an email reminding them that the conciliation conference was scheduled in five days’ time. [8] On 20 April 2026, the Applicant was sent an SMS reminder with respect to the conciliation conference. [9] At 4:34 PM AEST on 20 April 2026, Commission staff emailed the parties and informed them that the conciliation conference would commence at 11:15 AM AEST on the next day, instead of 9:15 AM as previously informed. [10] The Applicant did not attend the conciliation conference scheduled for 21 April 2026 The staff conciliator unsuccessfully attempted to telephone the Applicant three times during the listed conference. The Applicant did not contact the Commission before, during or after the conference to seek an adjournment, alert the Commission to any technical difficulties, or explain their non-attendance. [11] On 22 May 2026, my Chambers emailed the parties noting the Applicant’s non- attendance at the conciliation conference and directing the Applicant to inform Chambers by no later than 29 May 2026 whether they wished to proceed with the Application. The Applicant was placed on notice that absent their response by 29 May 2026, I would likely dismiss the Application under s 587 of the Act without further notice. The Applicant did not respond to this correspondence. [12] On 29 May 2026, my Chambers emailed the parties and noted that my Chambers was not in receipt of any response from the Applicant. The Applicant was again directed to confirm whether they wished to proceed with the Application by 5 June 2026. The Applicant was again placed on notice that their Application would very likely be dismissed if no response was received within this timeframe. The Applicant again did not respond to this correspondence. [13] Section 587 of the Act allows the Commission to dismiss an application if it is apparent that an applicant has stopped pursuing or participating in the proceedings that they commenced. Section 587(3)(a) allows the Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative, so long as the applicant has been afforded procedural fairness. [14] 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]). [15] I am satisfied that the Applicant’s conduct in failing to attend the conciliation conferences scheduled for 10 March 2026 and 21 April 2026, make any contact with the Commission concerning their non-attendance, and not complying with the directions set on 22 May 2026 and 29 May 2026 demonstrates that they are no longer willing to participate in their own case. [2026] FWC 2125 3 [16] The Applicant has been provided with the opportunity to inform the Commission that they wish to proceed with the Application and has been on notice since 22 May 2026 of the likely consequences if they did not do so. To date, the Commission has received no response. [17] For these reasons, I have decided to dismiss the application on my own initiative for want of prosecution, utilising the facility provided for by s 587(3)(a) of the Act. I make the following order: A. The application lodged by William Bowden on 29 January 2026 for an unfair dismissal remedy under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is dismissed. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR810831>