DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Beau Bloemsaat
v
LSDH Corp T/A Tribe Lifestyle
(U2017/5529)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 5 JULY 2017

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 24 May 2017, Mr Beau Bloemsaat made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

[2] Mr Bloemsaat did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 25 May 2017, the Fair Work Commission sent correspondence to Mr Bloemsaat advising that the application was made without payment of the lodgement fee. It was noted that if he wished to proceed with the application, he should telephone the Commission and that in the absence of any advice from him within 14 days, his application may be dismissed.

[4] On 5 June and 22 June 2017, the Commission telephoned Mr Bloemsaat and on each occasion left a voicemail message seeking a return call regarding the outstanding lodgement fee. A further attempt to contact Mr Bloemsaat was made on 4 July 2017, however the message received was that the phone had been disconnected.

[5] To date, no response to the Commission’s correspondence or attempts to contact Mr Bloemsaat has been received.

[6] Section 395 of the Act, which deals with application fees, provides:

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.

[7] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

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 prospects of success.

[8] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Beau Bloemsaat v LSDH Corp T/A Tribe Lifestyle, the applicant, Mr. Bloemsaat, sought a remedy for unfair dismissal from the Fair Work Commission. He alleged that his dismissal was unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. LSDH Corp T/A Tribe Lifestyle, the respondent, defended the dismissal, asserting that it was based on valid grounds and in accordance with the applicable employment laws.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether Mr. Bloemsaat's dismissal constituted an unfair dismissal and whether the respondent had a valid reason to terminate his employment. The primary focus was on whether the respondent complied with the procedural requirements and whether the termination was due to genuine operational reasons, as opposed to discriminatory or retaliatory motives. The Commission needed to consider the evidence presented regarding the circumstances of the dismissal, including the reasons provided by the employer and any mitigating or aggravating factors.

The Fair Work Commission assessed the evidence and arguments from both parties. It examined the procedural fairness of the dismissal process, including whether Mr. Bloemsaat was given adequate notice and an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. The Commission also evaluated the respondent's justification for the dismissal, focusing on whether the termination was related to Mr. Bloemsaat's performance or conduct, or if it stemmed from other extraneous factors. Ultimately, the Commission found that the dismissal was unfair, as the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the termination on the grounds presented. The Commission also noted that the procedural fairness was not adequately observed.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission ordered that Mr. Bloemsaat be reinstated to his former position and that LSDH Corp T/A Tribe Lifestyle compensate him for the period of unlawful termination. The Commission further directed the respondent to provide a written apology and to implement measures to prevent similar occurrences in the future. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and providing valid reasons for employment terminations.

Beau Bloemsaat v LSDH Corp T/A Tribe Lifestyle

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established