Andreas Zagrimanis v Star Track Express Pty Limited [2026] FWC 587

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394—Unfair dismissal Andreas Zagrimanis v Star Track Express Pty Limited (U2025/14931) DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON SYDNEY, 24 FEBRUARY 2026 Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application made under s.399A of the Fair Work Act – failure to attend conference – failure to attend hearing – s.399A application granted – application for unfair dismissal remedy dismissed. [1] On 16 September 2025, Mr Zagrimanis made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Mr Zagrimanis’ Form F2 application was prepared by his union, the Transport Workers Union. Mr Zagrimanis has not attended any proceedings in the Commission in relation to his application nor, it would seem, has he been contactable for some time. [2] On 24 December 2025, Star Track Express Pty Limited (Stark Track) made an application under s.399A for Mr Zagrimanis’ unfair dismissal application to be dismissed on the basis that Mr Zagrimanis has unreasonably failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC. [3] On 8 January 2026 the TWU withdrew their representation of Mr Zagrimanis because it has been unable to obtain instructions from him. Star Track’s application under s.399A was resent to Mr Zagrimanis directly however no response has been received from him. [4] For the reasons that follow I am satisfied that Mr Zagrimanis’ application should be dismissed pursuant to s.399A. [5] Section 399A of the Act provides: 399A Dismissing applications (1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably: (a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or [2026] FWC 587 DECISION AND ORDER -- 1 of 3 -- [2026] FWC 587 2 (b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or (c) failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded. (2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer. [6] Applications made under s.399A, require the contemplation of two limbs. First, I must consider whether the Applicant has either failed to attend a conference or hearing or comply with a direction of the FWC, and second, I must consider whether such a failure is unreasonable. [7] I am satisfied that Mr Zagrimanis has failed to attend a conference and a hearing conducted by the FWC. [8] As detailed in Star Track’s s.399A application, Mr Zagrimanis first failed to attend a FWC staff conciliation conference listed by the FWC in November. On this basis, a second staff conciliation conference was listed for December, and Mr Zagrimanis again failed to attend this conference. [9] Following this, Mr Zagrimanis’ application was referred to my chambers. On 17 December 2025, my chambers gave Mr Zagrimanis notice that this matter was listed for a directions hearing on 23 December 2025. True to form, Mr Zagrimanis failed to attend the directions hearing. [10] On the basis of the above-mentioned non-appearances, I am satisfied that Mr Zagrimanis failed to attend numerous conferences and a hearing convened by the Commission. [11] Turning to the issue of whether such failures are unreasonable, I note the following: (a) Mr Zagrimanis was until recently represented by the TWU, and in numerous emails sent by the TWU to the Commission, the TWU has repeatedly stated that it has been made numerous efforts to contact Mr Zagrimanis by email, phone and post and yet they have not received a response; (b) Mr Zagrimanis has not provided any explanation for his non-attendance at either conference or the directions hearing; (c) Mr Zagrimanis has, despite multiple attempts by the Commission to contact him, failed to respond to the Commission or advance the prosecution of his case. [12] Thus, all of the above matters establish that Mr Zagrimanis’ absences were unreasonable. [13] The power to dismiss a substantive application should only be exercised cautiously and sparingly because it results in the complete extinguishment of an applicant’s right to have their application heard and determined according to the law before they have had their ‘day in court’ (per John Cole v Roy Hill Station Pty Ltd T/A Roy Hill Station [2019] FWCFB 2925at [31]). -- 2 of 3 -- [2026] FWC 587 3 [14] In these circumstances, I see no utility in allowing Mr Zagrimanis’ claim to continue and I therefore grant Star Track’s application under s.399A. [15] I make the following order: A. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), made by Mr Andreas Zagrimanis on 16 September 2025 is dismissed. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Hearing details: Determined on the papers. Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR797042> -- 3 of 3 --