| [2022] FWC 169 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Anna Rinaldi
v
Northern Territory Government - Department of Corporate and Digital Development
(U2021/12336)
| COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 27 JANUARY 2022 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - failure to pay filing fee – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.
On 27 December 2021, Mrs Anna Rinaldi (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).
The application made by the Applicant was incomplete in that it did not include payment of the required fee or a completed fee waiver form in accordance with s.395 of the FW Act.
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 payment of the filing fee.
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 waiver form if she wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received within 14 days, the application may be dismissed.
On 19 January 2022, the Commission made a final attempt to contact the Applicant to obtain payment or a completed 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, that completing a fee waiver form was an option if she was experiencing financial hardship, and requesting a call back.
To date, the required fee has not been paid and a completed fee waiver form has not been received.
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.
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.
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] PR737778
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR737777>
- AGLC
- Anna Rinaldi v Northern Territory Government Department of Corporate and Digital Development [2022] FWC 169
- Case
- [2022] FWC 169
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the dismissal of Ms. Rinaldi was unfair, particularly given the circumstances surrounding the failure to pay the filing fee within the specified time frame. The Commission had to determine if the dismissal was justified under section 587 of the Fair Work Act, considering the procedural fairness and the application of the "no merit" dismissal provisions. Furthermore, the Commission had to assess if the dismissal was initiated by the Commission itself due to the procedural error.
In its decision, the Commission found that the dismissal was indeed initiated at its own initiative due to the failure to pay the filing fee within the time allowed. However, the Commission determined that the dismissal was fair and lawful. It held that the dismissal was justified under the "no merit" dismissal provisions, as Ms. Rinaldi's claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The Commission concluded that the Department's decision to dismiss was procedurally fair and that the dismissal was therefore lawful. As a result, the application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed.
The Commission ordered that the application for an unfair dismissal remedy be dismissed with no orders for costs.
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.