| [2023] FWC 2734 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Baris Kural
v
The Fair Traders
(U2023/8913)
| COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 19 OCTOBER 2023 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – unpaid application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative
On 15 September 2023 Mr Baris Kural made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).
The application was incomplete in that Mr Kural did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.
On 20 September 2023 the Commission sent correspondence to Mr Kural’s nominated email address advising that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received within 7 calendar days the application may be dismissed.
On 25 September 2023 the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Kural’s nominated email address reminding him that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received, his application may be dismissed.
On 3 October 2023 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Kural on his nominated telephone number to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered and there was no facility to leave a voicemail message.
A final attempt to contact Mr Kural on their nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 6 October 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. This call was also not answered and there was no facility to leave a voicemail message.
To date there has been no response from Mr Kural, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.
Section 395 of the FW Act, which deals with application fees, provides as follows:
395 Application fees
(1) An application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.
(2) The regulations may prescribe:
(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under this Division; and
(b) a method for indexing the fee; and
(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.
Section 587(1) of the FW Act provides as follows:
587 Dismissing applications
(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:
(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or
(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) the application has no reasonable prospect of success.
I am satisfied that, as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the FW Act, the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR767418>
- AGLC
- Baris Kural v The Fair Traders [2023] FWC 2734
- Case
- [2023] FWC 2734
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commission found that the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act as it was not accompanied by the prescribed fee, which is required by s.395 of the Act. The Commission also noted that despite multiple attempts to contact Kural to rectify the deficiencies, no response was received from him. Given that the application did not meet the statutory requirements and there was no reasonable prospect of success, the Commission dismissed the application under s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act.
This decision underscores the importance of compliance with procedural requirements when making an application to the Fair Work Commission. Failure to adhere to these requirements, such as the payment of the prescribed fee or the filing of a completed waiver form, can result in the dismissal of the application. The Commission's actions in this case highlight its commitment to ensuring that applications are made in accordance with the FW Act and that resources are not wasted on frivolous or vexatious applications.
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for unfair dismissal made by Baris Kural due to non-compliance with the FW Act, specifically for not including the required fee or a completed waiver form. This decision reinforces the necessity for applicants to strictly follow the procedural requirements outlined in the FW Act to avoid the dismissal of their applications.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.