Andrea Kilic v Tennis Canberra

[2019] FWC 3894

[2019] FWC 3894

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Andrea Kilic
v
Tennis Canberra
(U2019/4328)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY MELBOURNE, 6 JUNE 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 15 April 2019, Ms Andrea Kilic made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Ms Kilic attached an application for fee waiver, however the document was not complete, with responses to questions four and six having been omitted.

[3] On 16 April 2019, the Commission attempted to telephone Ms Kilic in relation to the incomplete application for fee waiver. This was unsuccessful and a voicemail message was left seeking a return call. On the same day, email correspondence was sent to Ms Kilic noting that questions four and six on the application for fee waiver needed to be completed and the form returned to the Commission as soon as possible.

[4] On 9 May and 22 May 2019, further attempts to telephone Ms Kilic were made and on each occasion a voicemail message was left seeking her return call.

[5] To date, no response from Ms Kilic has been received and neither payment of the application fee or a completed application for fee waiver has been received.

[6] Section 395 of the Act, 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

(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.”

[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

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.”

[8] Having regard to the above, I am satisfied the application was not made in accordance with the Act as Ms Kilic has not paid the required application fee nor been granted a fee waiver. As such, Ms Kilic’s application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR709042>