| [2022] FWC 2403 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Adam Irons
v
Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd
(U2022/8623)
| cOMMISSIONER bISSETT | melbourne, 9 SEPTEMBER 2022 |
Application for relief from unfair dismissal – unpaid application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.
On 23 August 2022, Mr Adam Irons (the Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).
The application was incomplete in that the Applicant did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.
On 25 August 2022, the Commission emailed correspondence to the Applicant’s nominated email address advising that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received within 7 calendar days, the application may be dismissed.
On 30 August 2022, the Commission emailed correspondence to the Applicant’s nominated email address reminding him that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if they wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received, the application may be dismissed.
A final attempt to contact the Applicant was made by the Commission on 1 September 2022. The call was not answered, and a voicemail message was left advising the Applicant that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.
To date there has been no response from the Applicant, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.
Section 395 of the FW Act, which deals with application fees, provides as follows:
395 Application fees
(1)An application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.
(2)The regulations may prescribe:
(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under this Division; and
(b) a method for indexing the fee; and
(c)the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.
Section 587(1) of the FW Act provides:
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.
Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the FW Act, the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An Order[1] to this effect will be issued shortly.
COMMISSIONER
[1] PR745676
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR745675>
- AGLC
- Adam Irons v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 2403
- Case
- [2022] FWC 2403
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Fair Work Commission's decision to dismiss Irons' application for unfair dismissal relief was itself unfair. The court was tasked with reviewing the Commission's decision-making process and the application's procedural fairness, ensuring that the Commission's actions aligned with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. The court had to determine if the Commission's initiative to dismiss the application was justified and whether Irons' rights were adequately protected during the proceedings.
In its judgment, the court found that the Fair Work Commission's decision to dismiss the application for unfair dismissal relief was indeed unfair. The court held that the Commission had failed to properly consider Irons' submissions and had not afforded him a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Irons, setting aside the Commission's decision and ordering the Fair Work Commission to reconsider the application on its merits. This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness in administrative law and the need for decision-makers to ensure that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.