Application by Leanne Matalone Summary

[2025] FWC 1981

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.372—General protections

Application by Leanne Matalone

(C2025/3494)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 10 JULY 2025

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

On 30 April 2025 Ms Leanne Matalone made a general protections application to the Fair Work Commission under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Ms Matalone’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a)) because the prescribed fee (per s.373) has not been paid or waived and the Form F8C was incomplete. Section 587(1)(a) allows the Commission to dismiss Ms Matalone’s application without conducting a hearing, so long as the applicant has been afforded procedural fairness.

Ms Matalone 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 Matalone’s general protections claim using the power available under s.587(1)(a) and make the following order:

The application under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Leanne Matalone on 30 April 2025 is dismissed

DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leanne Matalone lodged a general protections application with the Fair Work Commission under section 372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 on 30 April 2025. The application aimed to address alleged contraventions of her rights under the Act, but it was dismissed by Deputy President Easton on 10 July 2025 due to procedural deficiencies. Specifically, the application fee had not been paid or waived, and the Form F8C was incomplete, resulting in the application not being made in accordance with section 587(1)(a) of the Act.

The court was required to determine whether Ms Matalone's application could be dismissed without a hearing under section 587(1)(a) of the Act. This provision allows the Commission to dismiss an application if it is not in accordance with the Act, provided procedural fairness is afforded to the applicant. The court also needed to consider whether Ms Matalone had been given adequate opportunities to rectify the deficiencies in her application and to justify why it should not be dismissed.

In reaching its decision, the court considered that Ms Matalone had been provided with ample opportunity to correct the deficiencies in her application and to demonstrate why her application should not be dismissed. The court referred to Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302, where similar considerations were applied, and noted that the applicant had not taken the necessary steps to comply with the requirements of the Act. Consequently, the court dismissed Ms Matalone's application, ensuring that procedural fairness was maintained throughout the process.

The court made the following order: The application under section 372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Leanne Matalone on 30 April 2025 is dismissed.

Application by Leanne Matalone

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established