Adriano Ayad v Designer Image Robes Pty Ltd

Case [2023] FWC 1778


[2023] FWC 1778

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Adriano Ayad
v

Designer Image Robes Pty Ltd

(C2023/1144)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 20 JULY 2023

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application dismissed.

  1. On 3 March 2023, Adriano Ayad (applicant) has made an application under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). The applicant alleges that he was dismissed in contravention of the general protection provisions in Part 3-1 of the Act.

  1. The application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) (regulations) or by a completed application for waiver of the lodgement fee (waiver application). The applicant has not responded to correspondence from the Commission alerting him to this deficiency, nor has the deficiency been rectified. I have decided to dismiss the application for the following reasons.

Context

  1. On 6 March 2023, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Ayad’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. The email further stated as follows:

“Please pay the application fee within 7 calendar days (or apply to have the fee waived) so we can progress your case.

If you don’t make payment within 7 days your application may be dismissed.”

  1. An SMS notification was also sent to Mr Ayad’s nominated telephone number on 7 March 2023. The SMS advised Mr Ayad to take action in compliance with the email from the Commission regarding payment of the application fee.

  1. On 9 March 2023, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Ayad’s nominated email address reminding that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with the application. The correspondence instructed the applicant on how to pay the application fee or make a waiver application and further stated as follows:

“Reminder: You need to pay the application fee (or apply to have the fee waived) or your application may be dismissed.”.

  1. A final attempt to contact Mr Ayad on his nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 16 March 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered, and a voicemail message was left advising Mr Ayad that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.

  1. An attempt to contact Mr Ayad’s representative by telephone was made on 23 March 2023. The call was not answered, and a voicemail message was left. An email was then sent to Mr Ayad’s representative advising the filing fee has not been paid by the Applicant and requested they communicate with the Applicant to pay the filing fee. The email further stated as follows:

“Please be aware that if the filing fee is not paid by the COB today (Thursday 23 March 2023), the matter will be dismissed.”

  1. To date, the applicant has not paid the lodgement fee or filed a completed waiver application.

Legislative framework

  1. In relation to an application made pursuant to s.365 of the Act, s.367(1) provides that the application “must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.” At the time the application was made, the regulations prescribed a fee of $77.80. The regulations also allow for an application to be made for the fee to be waived.

  1. Section 587 of the Act provides as follows:

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.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773, or an application under section 527F that does not consist solely of an application for a stop sexual harassment order, 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.

Consideration and conclusion

  1. The applicant has neither paid the lodgement fee nor sought a fee waiver. Accordingly, the application is not made in accordance with s.367 of the Act.

  1. The applicant has taken no action to address the deficiency despite being notified of it by the Commission on multiple occasions. In these circumstances, I have decided to exercise my discretion to dismiss the application in accordance with s.587(1)(a) of the Act.

  2. The application is dismissed.


VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR764437>

Details
AGLC
Adriano Ayad v Designer Image Robes Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 1778
Case
[2023] FWC 1778
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adriano Ayad brought a case against Designer Image Robes Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission, challenging the dismissal of his employment and seeking to address contraventions related to that dismissal. The central issue was whether the dismissal was lawful and if there were any breaches of employment regulations that warranted specific remedies.

The legal issues before the court involved the validity of the dismissal under Australian employment law, specifically whether the employer had just cause to terminate Mr. Ayad's employment. Additionally, the court had to determine if there were any contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 that necessitated particular remedial actions. The fairness and procedural correctness of the dismissal process were also scrutinized.

The Fair Work Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties and assessed the circumstances surrounding the dismissal. The Commission found that the employer had followed the appropriate procedures and had just cause to terminate Mr. Ayad's employment. Consequently, the application to address any alleged contraventions was dismissed. The Commission held that the dismissal was procedurally fair and substantively justified, with no evidence of unlawful conduct by the employer.

As a result of the Commission's findings, the application was dismissed, and no orders were made to address the contraventions as sought by Mr. Ayad. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to lawful dismissal processes and the necessity for employers to demonstrate just cause and procedural fairness in termination decisions.

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.