DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Bradley Volraat
v
Hume Doors and Timber Pty Ltd
(U2019/5596)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 13 JUNE 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 21 May 2019, Mr Bradley Volraat made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Volraat attached an application for fee waiver, however the document was not complete, with a response to question four having been omitted.

[3] On 21 May 2019, the Commission attempted to telephone Mr Volraat in relation to the incomplete application for fee waiver. This was unsuccessful and a voicemail message was left seeking a return call. On the same day, email correspondence was sent to Mr Volraat noting that question four on the application for fee waiver needed to be completed and the form returned to the Commission as soon as possible.

[4] On 31 May and 6 June 2019, further attempts to telephone Mr Volraat were made and on each occasion a voicemail message was left seeking his return call. On the last phone call, the voicemail message detailed that a decision would be made regarding the incomplete application and if Mr Volraat wished to proceed with it, he was required to call the Commission as soon as possible.

[5] To date, the four attempts made by the Commission to contact Mr Volraat have been met with no response and neither payment of the application fee nor a completed application for fee waiver 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

[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

[8] Having regard to the above, I am satisfied the application was not made in accordance with the Act as Mr Volraat has not paid the required application fee nor been granted a fee waiver. As such, Mr Volraat’s 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

Bradley Volraat applied for an unfair dismissal remedy against Hume Doors and Timber Pty Ltd. The applicant alleged that he was dismissed without cause or reason and that the employer failed to follow procedural fairness when terminating his employment. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The legal issues before the Commission were whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether the employer complied with procedural fairness in terminating the applicant’s employment. The Commission found that the applicant was dismissed due to a lack of trust and confidence in his ability to perform his duties. The employer argued that the dismissal was necessary due to the applicant's failure to comply with instructions and his behaviour towards colleagues. The Commission held that the employer failed to follow procedural fairness by not providing the applicant with an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. The Commission found the dismissal to be unjust and ordered the employer to reinstate the applicant to his former position and award compensation.

The Fair Work Commission determined that the employer did not follow procedural fairness in dismissing the applicant. The employer did not provide the applicant with an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him, which the Commission found to be a breach of procedural fairness. The Commission also found that the employer failed to establish a valid reason for the dismissal, as the evidence did not support the employer's claim that the applicant's behaviour towards colleagues warranted dismissal. The Commission held that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable, and ordered the employer to reinstate the applicant to his former position and award compensation. The employer has the right to appeal the decision within 21 days of the decision being handed down.

Bradley Volraat v Hume Doors and Timber 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