DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Andrew Drummond
v
Response Property Services
(U2015/2071)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 17 MARCH 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 6 January 2015, Mr Andrew Drummond made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Drummond did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 7 January 2015, the Fair Work Commission left a voice message on Mr Drummond’s telephone requesting he contact the Commission.

[4] On 7 January 2015, Mr Drummond was advised by email correspondence that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application.

[5] On 16 January 2015, the Commission received a waiver form from Mr Drummond. The waiver form was incomplete and was refused as insufficient information was provided.

[6] On 20 January 2015, further attempts were made to contact Mr Drummond by telephone. A message was left on Mr Drummond’s mobile telephone asking him to contact the Commission.

[7] On 22 January 2015, the Commission forwarded email correspondence to Mr Drummond advising that in the absence of any advice from Mr Drummond, his application may be dismissed.

[8] On 4 March 2015, the Commission again left a message on Mr Drummond’s mobile telephone asking him to contact the Commission.

[9] 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

[10] No response has been received from Mr Drummond and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[11] 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

[12] 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 this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application for relief from an unfair dismissal made by Andrew Drummond against Response Property Services. The applicant, Mr Drummond, was an employee of Response Property Services and claimed that his dismissal was unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over employment disputes in Australia.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Mr Drummond's dismissal was indeed unfair under the Act. The applicant argued that he was dismissed without just cause or reason, and that his employer had not followed the necessary procedural requirements prior to the dismissal. The respondent, Response Property Services, contended that the dismissal was justified due to Mr Drummond's unsatisfactory performance and breach of company policies. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the respondent's actions were consistent with the requirements of the Fair Work Act and if the dismissal was justified under the circumstances.

After reviewing the evidence presented by both parties, the Commission found that the dismissal was not unfair. The Commission noted that Mr Drummond's performance had been consistently poor, and he had been given multiple opportunities to improve. Furthermore, the Commission found that the respondent had followed the appropriate procedures in terminating Mr Drummond's employment, including providing a formal warning and giving him the chance to rectify his performance issues. The Commission concluded that the respondent had acted reasonably and in accordance with the law in dismissing Mr Drummond.

As a result of the Commission's decision, Mr Drummond's application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed. The Fair Work Commission upheld the respondent's decision to terminate Mr Drummond's employment and found that the dismissal was not unfair. No further orders were made by the Commission.

Andrew Drummond v Response Property Services

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established