Application by Karen Williams

[2024] FWC 3420

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Application by Karen Williams

(C2024/7465)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 6 DECEMBER 2024

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application dismissed.

On 17 October 2024 Ms Karen Williams made an general protections application to the Fair Work Commission under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Ms Williams’ application was incomplete because she did not complete questions 1.3 and 1.4 and she did not pay the required fee or file a completed request to waive the fee.

Commission staff contacted Ms Williams on the following dates:
· 22 October 2024 by telephone and email; and
· 12 November 2024 by telephone.

Ms Williams was advised that she must pay the filing fee or apply for a waiver if she wished to proceed with the application. Ms Williams was also warned that the application could be dismissed if the filing fee was not paid by 13 November 2024.

To date there has been no response from Ms Williams, no fee paid and no completed waiver request received.

Ms Williams’ 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 Williams’ application.

Ms Williams has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [15]-[16] and the cases cited therein). The Commission’s inquiries and warnings have largely been ignored.

I have decided to dismiss Ms Williams’ 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 Karen Williams on 17 October 2024 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission recently dismissed a general protections application brought by Ms Karen Williams. The application was filed on 17 October 2024 under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009, but it was incomplete as Ms Williams failed to complete certain questions and did not pay the required fee or file a completed request to waive the fee. The Commission made multiple attempts to contact Ms Williams to address the deficiencies, but there was no response. Consequently, the Deputy President, Easton, exercised the discretion under section 587(1)(a) to dismiss the application.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Ms Williams' application complied with the requirements of the Act, particularly in terms of the filing fee and the completeness of the application. Section 587 of the Fair Work Act grants the Commission the authority to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act, and this includes ensuring that the prescribed fee is paid or a waiver request is filed. The Commission had provided Ms Williams with ample opportunity to rectify the deficiencies, but she failed to respond to the Commission's warnings and inquiries.

In dismissing the application, the Deputy President noted that Ms Williams had been given sufficient opportunity to address the deficiencies but had largely ignored the Commission’s attempts to assist her. The decision to dismiss the application was made in accordance with the powers conferred by section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act. The Deputy President concluded that the application was not made in accordance with the Act due to the non-payment of the filing fee and the incomplete nature of the application.

The final order made by the Deputy President was that the application brought by Ms Karen Williams on 17 October 2024 under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 was dismissed. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements when making an application to the Fair Work Commission.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established