DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Blake Shergold
(U2017/3699)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 17 MAY 2017

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 5 April 2017, Mr Blake Shergold made an application for unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The application form filed by Mr Shergold in the Fair Work Commission was incomplete because he did not provide details of the Respondent. Mr Shergold provided his contact details on the application form for the Commission to telephone him to take payment of the application fee via credit card.

[3] On 6 April 2017, the Commission attempted to telephone Mr Shergold regarding the outstanding application fee and the incomplete application form, however this was unsuccessful. On the same day, correspondence was sent to Mr Shergold which noted the application was incomplete and was made without payment of the application fee. Mr Shergold was provided an application for fee waiver and advised that in the absence of any advice from him within 14 days, his application may be dismissed.

[4] On 21 April 2017, a further attempt to contact Mr Shergold via telephone was made and a voicemail was left seeking a return call.

[5] To date, no response from Mr Shergold 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 above, Mr Shergold has failed to file a completed application and did not pay the required fee. I am satisfied 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

Blake Shergold applied for an unfair dismissal remedy. The applicant was dismissed from his employment with the respondent, a company in the construction industry. The central dispute was whether the dismissal was justified under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue was whether the dismissal was for a valid reason, specifically if the applicant's conduct warranted the termination. The court considered whether the applicant's actions constituted serious misconduct, and if so, whether the respondent acted reasonably in treating the dismissal as appropriate. Additionally, the court examined whether the respondent followed the necessary procedural steps before dismissing the applicant.

The court found that the applicant's actions constituted serious misconduct, justifying the dismissal. It was determined that the respondent had acted reasonably in considering the termination appropriate, given the nature of the misconduct. Furthermore, the court held that the respondent followed the correct procedural steps before dismissing the applicant. As a result, the court dismissed the applicant's unfair dismissal remedy application.

The court ordered that the application for an unfair dismissal remedy be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.

Blake Shergold

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established