Application by Hamza Saleem Summary

[2025] FWC 2506

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Application by Hamza Saleem

(UDE2025/102)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 26 AUGUST 2025

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy – application fee not paid or waived – Application dismissed.

On 6 June 2025 Mr Hamza Saleem made an application regarding unfair deactivation to the Fair Work Commission under s.536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Mr Saleem’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a))

because the prescribed fee (per s.536LV) has not been paid or waived.

Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Mr Saleem’s application if the application is not made in accordance with the Act. Mr Saleem has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application and has also had ample opportunity to show why his 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 Mr Saleem’s unfair deactivation claim using the power

available under s.587(1)(a) and make the following order:

The application under s.536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Hamza Saleem on 6 June 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application by Mr Hamza Saleem seeking an unfair deactivation remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr Saleem's application was filed on 6 June 2025, but it did not comply with the requirements of the Act because the necessary application fee was neither paid nor waived, as mandated by section 536LV. The Deputy President, Easton, was tasked with determining whether Mr Saleem's application could be dismissed under section 587(1)(a) of the Act due to this non-compliance.

The central legal issue before the Deputy President was whether Mr Saleem's application could be dismissed because it did not adhere to the procedural requirements of the Act. Section 587 grants the Commission discretion to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act. Mr Saleem was given multiple opportunities to rectify the deficiency in his application and to provide reasons why it should not be dismissed. The Deputy President considered Mr Saleem's responses and the relevant precedents, including the case of Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge.

After reviewing the application and considering Mr Saleem's submissions, the Deputy President decided to exercise the discretion provided by section 587(1)(a) to dismiss Mr Saleem's unfair deactivation claim. The Deputy President concluded that Mr Saleem had ample opportunity to comply with the procedural requirements of the Act and had not provided sufficient grounds to warrant a different outcome. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission made the following order: the application under section 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 made by Mr Hamza Saleem on 6 June 2025 is dismissed.

Application by Hamza Saleem

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established