Application by Eunice Moller

[2025] FWC 846

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Application by Eunice Moller

(C2025/879)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 26 MARCH 2025

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application fee not paid or waived – application not made in accordance with the Act – application dismissed.

On 6 February 2025 Ms Eunice Moller made a general protections application to the Fair Work Commission under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Ms Moller’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a)) because the prescribed fee (per s.367) has not been paid or waived.

Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Ms Moller’s application if the application is not made in accordance with the Act. Ms Moller has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application and has also had ample opportunity to show why her application should not be dismissed under s.587 (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [15]-[16] and the cases cited therein).

I have decided to dismiss Ms Moller’s general protections claim using the power available under s.587(1)(a) and make the following order:

The application under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Eunice Moller on 6 February 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Eunice Moller filed an application with the Fair Work Commission under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking redress for what she claimed were contraventions involving her dismissal. The application, dated 6 February 2025, did not include the required fee or a waiver of the fee, as stipulated by section 367 of the Act. The Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission, Easton, was tasked with determining whether the application should proceed despite the procedural oversight.

The primary legal issue before Deputy President Easton was whether the Commission had the discretion to dismiss Ms Moller's application under section 587(1)(a) of the Act due to the non-payment of the prescribed fee or the lack of a waiver. Given that Ms Moller had been provided with multiple opportunities to rectify the fee issue and had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for the application to proceed under section 587, the Deputy President exercised the discretion to dismiss the application.

Deputy President Easton found that the application was not made in accordance with the Act and, therefore, had the authority to dismiss it under section 587(1)(a). Ms Moller had ample opportunity to address the fee deficiency and to argue why the application should not be dismissed. However, she failed to provide adequate justification or rectify the fee issue. Consequently, the Deputy President dismissed the application, and made the following order: The application under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 made by Ms Eunice Moller on 6 February 2025 is dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established