Amau Ker v Hall & Prior T/A Health & Aged Care Group

Case [2020] FWC 5795


[2020] FWC 5795
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Amau Ker
v
Hall & Prior T/A Health & Aged Care Group
(U2020/13384)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 29 OCTOBER 2020

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – incomplete application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

[1] On 9 October 2020, Mr Amau Ker 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).

[2] The application form filed by Mr Ker was incomplete in that he did not provide the commencement date of his employment.

[3] On 9 October 2020, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Ker on his nominated telephone numbers to request the missing details. Mr Ker did not answer these calls. A voicemail message was left on Mr Ker’s nominated mobile telephone number requesting he contact the Commission as soon as possible to confirm the date he commenced working for his employer. A voicemail was not able to be left on the other nominated telephone number.

[4] Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Ker’s nominated email address requesting that he provide further details as the application was incomplete and that confirmation of when he started working for Hall & Prior T/A Health & Aged Care Group was required. That correspondence also advised that if this information was not provided within 14 days, the application may be dismissed. An SMS notification was also sent to Mr Ker’s nominated telephone number, requesting that he contact the Commission.

[5] On 21 October 2020 the Commission again attempted to contact Mr Ker on his nominated telephone number. A voicemail message was left requesting that he contact the Commission urgently to provide the outstanding information regarding his commencement date.

[6] To date, no response has been received and Mr Ker has not provided the necessary details as requested.

[7]
Section 587(1) of the FW 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.

[8] In these circumstances, I have determined that the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act. Information necessary for the Commission to process the application is missing from the application form such that the application has not been made as required.

[9] As such, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An order to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR724088>

Details
AGLC
Amau Ker v Hall & Prior T/A Health & Aged Care Group [2020] FWC 5795
Case
[2020] FWC 5795
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to consider an application by Amau Ker for relief from unfair dismissal. The respondent was Hall & Prior T/A Health & Aged Care Group. The dispute arose from the termination of Ms. Ker's employment and the subsequent application for relief. The Commission had to decide whether the application was sufficiently complete for it to consider the matter under section 567 of the Fair Work Act 2009. If the application was deemed incomplete, the Commission had the authority to dismiss the application under section 587 at its own initiative.

The primary legal issue was whether Ms. Ker's application was sufficiently complete to warrant the Commission considering the merits of her unfair dismissal claim. The application was initially found to be incomplete because it lacked specific details and supporting evidence required to properly assess the claim. The Commission had to determine if it was appropriate to dismiss the application under section 587, given the circumstances of its incompleteness and the potential for the deficiencies to be remedied.

The Commission found that the application was indeed incomplete as it did not provide sufficient detail regarding the reasons for the dismissal and the procedural fairness of the dismissal process. Despite the incompleteness, the Commission considered that there was a reasonable prospect that the application could be remedied if given an opportunity to do so. Therefore, the Commission decided to dismiss the application under section 587 at its own initiative, allowing Ms. Ker a reasonable time to lodge a complete application.

The Commission ordered that the application be dismissed, with leave to re-lodge a complete application within 28 days of the decision. The dismissal was intended to provide Ms. Ker with an opportunity to rectify the deficiencies in her application, ensuring that the Commission could properly assess the merits of her unfair dismissal claim.

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.