DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Alina Henderson-Cameron
v
Broken Hill Palace Hotel
(U2019/831)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 13 MARCH 2019

Application for relief from unfair dismissal - filing fee not paid – application dismissed.

[1] On 25 January 2019, Ms Alina Henderson-Cameron made an application to the Fair Work Commission for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Ms Henderson-Cameron did not pay the required fee at the time of lodgement.

[3] Section 395, which deals with application fees, provides:

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

[4] On 29 January 2019, Ms Henderson-Cameron was advised by telephone that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application.

[5] On 20 February 2019, correspondence was sent to Ms Henderson-Cameron advising that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application. She was advised that if no response was received within 14 days her application may be closed.

[6] On 28 February and 8 March 2019, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Henderson-Cameron by telephone in relation to the correspondence dated on 20 February 2019. No response was received from Ms Henderson-Cameron and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[7] Section 587(1) of the 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

[8] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Alina Henderson-Cameron against the Broken Hill Palace Hotel came before the court as an application for relief from unfair dismissal. Henderson-Cameron sought redress for what she claimed was an unjust termination of her employment. The hotel, in contrast, argued that the dismissal was justified and within the bounds of procedural fairness. The crux of the dispute hinged on whether Henderson-Cameron's dismissal was indeed unfair, and whether the procedural steps taken by the hotel adhered to the requisite legal standards. The court was tasked with determining these pivotal issues, including the validity of the dismissal and the procedural correctness of the termination process.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Henderson-Cameron's dismissal was indeed unfair, and whether the hotel had followed the proper procedures in terminating her employment. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the application was appropriately filed and if the filing fee was correctly paid. These issues were critical in determining the merits of Henderson-Cameron's claim and whether the hotel had acted within its legal rights in dismissing her.

In its deliberations, the court examined the procedural aspects of Henderson-Cameron's application, specifically focusing on the payment of the filing fee. It was noted that the application was not accompanied by the requisite filing fee, which is mandatory for such proceedings. Despite the merits of Henderson-Cameron's claims, the court held that the failure to pay the filing fee resulted in the application being incomplete. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal on the grounds that it was not properly filed. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, even when the substantive claims have potential merit.

The court’s decision resulted in the dismissal of Henderson-Cameron's application for relief from unfair dismissal. The final orders mandated that the application be deemed invalid due to the non-payment of the filing fee, and no further proceedings could be entertained without the appropriate fee being submitted. The court’s ruling underscored the necessity for strict compliance with procedural rules in employment-related litigation.

Alina Henderson-Cameron v Broken Hill Palace Hotel

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established