Angela Jager-Haala v Catholic Education Northern Territory

[2024] FWC 1883

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Angela Jager-Haala
v

Catholic Education Northern Territory

(C2024/2900)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 18 JULY 2024

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

On 3 May 2024, Angela Jager-Haala made an application under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Ms Jager-Haala alleges that she was dismissed in contravention of the general protection provisions in Part 3-1 of the Act.

The application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) or by a completed application for waiver of the lodgement fee.

Fair Work Commission staff sent a payment request to Ms Jager-Haala directly on 8 May 2024. Staff also sent an SMS on 9 May 2024 asking Ms Jager-Haala to action her payment request email. Ms Jager-Haala did not respond to either message.

A reminder to pay was sent to Ms Jager-Haala on 15 May 2024. No response was received.

On 17 May 2024 Commission staff contacted Ms Jager-Haala on her nominated telephone number and Ms Jager-Haala advised that she will access the payment request email and pay the fee online. To date no payment has been received.

The matter was referred to my chambers on 17 June 2024 and there were further attempts to contact Ms Jager-Haala by telephone on 4 July 2024, 9 July 2024 and 16 July 2024. Voicemail messages were once again left for Ms Jager-Haala asking her to take action.

One final notice email was sent to Ms Jager-Haala on 9 July 2024 regarding payment, and a follow-up email was sent on 17 July 2024 asking Ms Jager-Haala to urgently ring chambers.

To date, Ms Jager-Haala has not responded to any correspondence from the Fair Work Commission, nor has she paid the lodgement fee or applied for a waiver of the fee.

Legislative framework

Section 367(1) of the Act requires that an application under s.365 “must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.” At the time Ms Jager-Haala’s application was made the regulations prescribed a fee of $83.30. The regulations also allow for an application to be made for the fee to be waived.

Section 587 of the 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.

Note:   For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.
(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:
(a)       is frivolous or vexatious; or
(b)       has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3)       The FWC may dismiss an application:
(a)       on its own initiative; or
(b)       on application.”

Consideration and conclusion

Ms Jager-Haala has neither paid the lodgement fee or sought a fee waiver. Accordingly, the application is not made in accordance with s.367 of the Act.

Ms Jager-Haala has taken no action to address the deficiency despite several invitations to do so and despite being notified of the potential consequences for her application if the deficiency is not rectified. In these circumstances, I have decided to exercise my discretion to dismiss the application in accordance with s.587(1)(a) of the Act.

The application is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Angela Jager-Haala filed an application under the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging wrongful dismissal by the Catholic Education Northern Territory. The application, dated 3 May 2024, claims that her dismissal contravened the general protection provisions of the Act. Despite multiple reminders, Jager-Haala did not remit the required fee of $83.30, nor did she apply for a waiver. The application remained unfunded and incomplete, leading to its referral to the Deputy President for review.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the application could be dismissed due to non-compliance with the Act's requirements for fee payment or waiver application. Under section 367 of the Fair Work Act, any application must be accompanied by the prescribed fee, and failure to do so could result in the application not being made in accordance with the Act. The Commission considered whether this non-compliance warranted dismissal under section 587(1)(a) of the Act, which permits dismissal if the application is not made in accordance with the Act.

The Deputy President, Easton, found that Jager-Haala had failed to address the fee deficiency despite numerous opportunities to do so. Given the clear statutory requirement for fee payment or waiver application, and the applicant's persistent non-compliance, the Deputy President exercised his discretion to dismiss the application. The dismissal was made under section 587(1)(a) of the Act, as the application was not made in accordance with the legislative requirements.

In conclusion, the application by Angela Jager-Haala was dismissed by the Fair Work Commission due to her failure to pay the required fee or seek a waiver, as mandated by the Act. The dismissal was a result of the applicant's non-compliance with the statutory requirements despite multiple notices and warnings from the Commission.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established