DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Beverley Angus
v
DASAC Pty Ltd
(U2021/2865)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 30 APRIL 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 6 April 2021 Ms Beverley Angus (Applicant) 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).

[2] The application was incomplete in that Ms Angus did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

[3] On 7 April 2021 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Angus on her nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee however, Ms Angus did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting Ms Angus call the Commission to make payment.

[4] On the same day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Angus’s nominated email address advising that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received within 14 days, the application may be dismissed. An SMS notification was also sent to Ms Angus’s nominated telephone number, advising that there was a problem with her application and requesting she contact the Commission.

[5] A further attempt to contact Ms Angus was made by the Commission on 22 April 2021 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was unsuccessful, and a voicemail message was left advising Ms Angus that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.

[6] To date there has been no response from Ms Angus, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.

[7] 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

[8] Section 587(1) of the FW 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

[9] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, 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. An Order 1 to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR729078

The applicant, Beverley Angus, applied for an unfair dismissal remedy against her former employer, Dasac Pty Ltd, which was heard by the Fair Work Commission. The central issue was whether the dismissal of Ms Angus was unjust and therefore unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009. Ms Angus alleged that she was dismissed without just cause or reason, and that her employer failed to follow proper procedural steps in terminating her employment.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the dismissal was for a valid reason, whether the termination was handled in a procedurally fair manner, and whether the employer's actions were reasonable in the circumstances. Ms Angus argued that she was dismissed without proper investigation or warning, and that her employer acted in bad faith. Dasac Pty Ltd, on the other hand, contended that Ms Angus's dismissal was justified due to serious misconduct and that the necessary procedural steps were followed.

The Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties and considered the applicable legal principles. It found that while Ms Angus's conduct did warrant disciplinary action, the employer failed to conduct a proper investigation or provide adequate warnings before proceeding with the dismissal. The Commission determined that the dismissal was unjust as it did not meet the requirements of procedural fairness. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of Ms Angus, finding that her dismissal was unfair and ordered that she be reinstated to her former position with back pay.

The Fair Work Commission issued orders for Ms Angus's reinstatement to her former position with Dasac Pty Ltd, along with back pay from the date of her dismissal. The employer was also directed to apologise to Ms Angus for the unfair manner in which her employment was terminated. Additionally, the Commission ordered Dasac Pty Ltd to pay Ms Angus's legal costs associated with the proceedings.

Beverley Angus v Dasac Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established