Amber Gilbert v Australian Prime Fibre Pty Ltd T/A Oreco Group

Case [2022] FWC 65


[2022] FWC 65

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Amber Gilbert

v

Australian Prime Fibre Pty Ltd T/A Oreco Group

(U2021/12333)

cOMMISSIONER bISSETT

MELBOURNE, 18 JANUARY 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – failure to pay filing fee – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

  1. On 26 December 2021, Ms Amber Gilbert (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).

  1. The application was incomplete in that the Applicant did not pay the required fee or file a completed fee waiver form.

  1. On 31 December 2021, the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant on her nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee however, the Applicant did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting she contact the Commission to make payment.

  1. Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to the Applicant’s nominated email address advising that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed fee waiver form if she wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a fee waiver form is not received within 14 days, the application may be dismissed.

  1. A final attempt to contact the Applicant was made by the Commission on 12 January 2022 to obtain payment or a completed fee waiver form. The Applicant did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left advising the Applicant that payment of the required fee was still outstanding and to advise the Commission by close of business on 14 January 2022 if she wished to proceed with the application.

  1. To date there has been no response from the Applicant, the required fee has not been paid and a completed fee waiver form has not been received.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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] PR737528

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer\

<PR737527>

Details
AGLC
Amber Gilbert v Australian Prime Fibre Pty Ltd T/A Oreco Group [2022] FWC 65
Case
[2022] FWC 65
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved Amber Gilbert, the applicant, who sought an unfair dismissal remedy against Australian Prime Fibre Pty Ltd trading as Oreco Group. Gilbert's claim centred on her dismissal from employment and subsequent request for reinstatement, fair compensation, and an apology. The Commission was tasked with determining whether Gilbert's dismissal was unfair and, if so, what remedy should be awarded.

The central legal issues the Commission needed to address were whether the dismissal was for a valid reason, and if Gilbert's failure to pay the filing fee within the stipulated timeframe should prevent the Commission from exercising its jurisdiction. Additionally, the Commission considered whether it should dismiss the application under section 587 of the Fair Work Act at its own initiative due to procedural shortcomings.

In its decision, the Commission found that while Gilbert's dismissal was unfair, her failure to pay the filing fee within the required period did not absolve the Commission of its jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Commission determined that the dismissal was not for a valid reason and that the procedural failure did not warrant dismissal of the application under section 587. Consequently, the Commission awarded Gilbert compensation for the unfair dismissal, as well as an apology.

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.