Application by Kent Gardner Summary

[2024] FWC 3408

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.372—General protections

Application by Kent Gardner

(C2024/5741)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 6 DECEMBER 2024

Application to deal with other contraventions dispute – application not made in accordance with the Act – application dismissed.

On 9 August 2024 Mr Kent Gardner made a general protections not involving dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

For the reasons that follow I am satisfied that Mr Gardner’s application has not been made in accordance with the Act and that it is appropriate to dismiss the application.

Mr Gardner’s application relates to events that he says occurred in 2002 and was incomplete insofar as the Respondent’s details were not properly completed and his application.

Section 587(1)(a) confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss the applications that are not made in accordance with the Act.

I am satisfied that Mr Gardner has had the opportunity to put his case for consideration on all materials material to the making of the decision to dismiss his application 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 make the following order:

The application under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Kent Gardner on 9 August 2024 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application from Mr Kent Gardner under section 372 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which pertains to general protections not involving dismissal. The application, dated 9 August 2024, concerns events that Mr Gardner claims occurred in 2002. The respondent's details were not accurately filled out in the application, leading to an incomplete submission. The Deputy President, Easton, was tasked with determining whether Mr Gardner's application complied with the statutory requirements and, if not, whether it should be dismissed.

The central legal issue for the court was whether Mr Gardner's application adhered to the provisions of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the application was complete and correctly filled out, as required by the legislation. Given that the respondent's details were not properly completed, the application did not meet the necessary standards. The court referred to section 587(1)(a) of the Act, which allows the Commission to dismiss applications that do not comply with the statutory requirements.

The Deputy President concluded that Mr Gardner's application did not comply with the Act due to the incomplete respondent details. The court found that Mr Gardner had the opportunity to present his case fully, as per the referenced case law, but had failed to meet the necessary standards. The Deputy President exercised the discretion granted under section 587(1)(a) to dismiss the application. The dismissal was deemed appropriate as the application did not meet the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act.

The final order issued by the Deputy President was that the application made by Mr Kent Gardner under section 372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 on 9 August 2024 is dismissed. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements when submitting applications to the Fair Work Commission.

Application by Kent Gardner

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established