Andrea Pigdon v Merri Outreach Support Service Ltd

[2025] FWC 2784

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.372—General protections

Andrea Pigdon
v

Merri Outreach Support Service Ltd

(C2025/6563)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BELL

MELBOURNE, 18 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – dismissal under s.587(1)(a) at the Commission’s initiative.

On 8 July 2025, Ms Andrea Pigdon made a general protections application under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that Ms Pigdon’s application has not been made in accordance with the Act and that it is appropriate to dismiss the application.

Ms Pigdon’s application was incomplete because she did not pay the required fee or file a completed request to waive the fee.

Commission staff attempted to contact Ms Pigdon on:

8 August 2025, by SMS text message; and
14 August 2025, by email.

On 5 September 2025, Commission staff emailed Ms Pigdon requiring a response by 12 September 2025. She was advised that if no response was received her application may be dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the Act because it has not been made in accordance with the Act. No response has been received, the fee has not been paid, and no waiver request has been received.

Ms Pigdon has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application. She has not responded to multiple enquiries and warnings that her application may be dismissed. I am satisfied that Ms Pigdon’s application should be dismissed. I make the following order:

[1] The application under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Andrea Pigdon on 8 July 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Andrea Pigdon made an application to the Fair Work Commission under section 372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) against Merri Outreach Support Service Ltd, alleging a dismissal in contravention of the general protections provisions. The application was lodged on 8 July 2025. The Commission was required to determine whether the application was made in accordance with the Act, particularly focusing on whether the requisite fee was paid or a fee waiver request was properly filed.

The central legal issue the Fair Work Commission needed to address was whether Ms Pigdon's application was procedurally valid. This involved assessing if she complied with the requirements of paying the application fee or submitting a request to waive the fee as stipulated by the Act. The Commission was tasked with determining whether Ms Pigdon's failure to meet these procedural requirements justified dismissing her application under section 587(1)(a) of the Act.

The Deputy President, Bell, found that Ms Pigdon's application was incomplete as she neither paid the required fee nor filed a completed request to waive the fee. Despite multiple attempts by Commission staff to contact her and provide opportunities to rectify the deficiency, Ms Pigdon did not respond to these communications. Consequently, the Deputy President concluded that the application should be dismissed for non-compliance with the Act. The Deputy President ordered that Ms Pigdon's application under section 372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) be dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established