Adam Radnell v Redpath Contract Services Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 2309

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394—Unfair dismissal Adam Radnell v Redpath Contract Services Pty Ltd (U2026/4199) DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’KEEFFE PERTH, 22 JUNE 2026 Application for an unfair dismissal remedy– Applicant not prosecuting application - application dismissed pursuant to s.587 of the Act. [1] On 26 March 2026 Adam Radnell (the Applicant) applied under s.394 of the Fair Work Act (the Act) for a remedy for alleged unfair dismissal. On 8 April 2026 Redpath Contract Services Pty Ltd (the Respondent) lodged a response to the application. The matter was allocated to my Chambers on 27 May 2026. [2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 16 June 2026. The Respondent attended the conference, but the Applicant failed to appear. Several calls were made to the Applicant’s telephone, but no response was received. An email was sent to him with a link to the conference, but this also received no response. [3] Given this, I caused my Chambers to email the Applicant later that day as follows: “Dear Mr Radnell, Deputy President O'Keeffe notes with some concern your failure to attend the conciliation conference scheduled for 10am this morning, which was convened to deal with your unfair dismissal application. At around 10am calls were made to your phone but these went unanswered and we received no response to our email sent at that time. You should be aware that failure to attend a conference called by the Commission can be grounds for dismissal of your application. At this time, the Deputy President is considering dismissing your application. However, you are provided with an opportunity to explain your failure to attend the conference and indicate whether you wish to continue with your application. Such advice and explanation should be received in Chambers by no later than 4.00pm (AWST) Thursday 18th June 2026. You should be aware that if no response is received by that time, your application may be dismissed with no further correspondence to you.” [2026] FWC 2309 DECISION -- 1 of 2 -- [2026] FWC 2309 2 [4] No response was received. Given this, I caused my Chambers to send a further email to the Applicant on 19 June 2026 as follows: “Dear Mr Radnell, I refer to our previous correspondence emailed to you on 16 June 2026. In that email, you were asked to provide an explanation for your non-attendance at the conference listed for that morning. You were also warned that if no response was received by 4.00pm Thursday 18 June your application may be terminated. As at 9.30am Friday 19 June we have received no response from you. You are now advised that if no response is received by 4.00pm today – being Friday 19 June – your application will be dismissed.” [5] As at 5.00pm (AWST) 22 June 2026 no response had been received. [6] Previous decisions of the FWC have found that the items in s587(1)(a)-(c) do not limit the powers of the FWC to dismiss applications (Samuel v Collins Transport Group Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 5521. In this instance, the Applicant has failed to attend a conference and then failed to respond to two separate items of correspondence following up his non-attendance and seeking to establish his intentions. As such, I am satisfied that the Applicant is not properly pursuing his application. [7] In these circumstances, I am persuaded to exercise my powers under s587 to dismiss the application. An order to that effect will issue. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR811266> -- 2 of 2 --