DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Casey Dahlenburg
v
Norris Group
(U2020/9007)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 17 JULY 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 1 July 2020, Ms Casey Dahlenburg 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 Dahlenburg did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

[3] On 1 July 2020, the Commission contacted Ms Dahlenburg on her nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee. The Commission advised Ms Dahlenburg that the filing fee was still outstanding to which Ms Dahlenburg advised she had not realised she had to pay a filing fee. The Commission advised if payment would cause Ms Dahlenburg financial hardship, she could apply to have the fee waived. Ms Dahlenburg asked for a waiver form to be sent to her to complete.

[4] Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Dahlenburg’s nominated email address advising that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if they 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.

[5] On 14 July 2002, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Dahlenburg to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered and a voicemail message was left advising Ms Dahlenburg that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.

[6] To date there has been no response from Ms Dahlenburg, 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

(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.

[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

(b) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[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 to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The parties involved in this case were Casey Dahlenburg and the Norris Group. The dispute arose from the termination of Dahlenburg’s employment and the subsequent application for an unfair dismissal remedy. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an Australian federal statutory tribunal.

The legal issues before the tribunal were whether Dahlenburg's dismissal was unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the employer had valid reasons to terminate his employment. Dahlenburg argued that his dismissal was unjust and that the employer had failed to provide adequate reasons for his termination. The Norris Group contended that Dahlenburg's dismissal was justified due to his misconduct and that there were legitimate reasons for terminating his employment.

In its decision, the tribunal examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered the principles of fairness and procedural justice. The tribunal found that the employer had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the dismissal as it did not follow the proper disciplinary procedures. Furthermore, the tribunal concluded that Dahlenburg's dismissal was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable. As a result, the tribunal ordered that Dahlenburg's dismissal be deemed unfair and that he be reinstated to his previous position or compensated with equivalent pay and conditions.

Casey Dahlenburg v Norris Group

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established