Cassidy Quinlan v Manpower Services (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A ManpowerGroup

[2024] FWC 823

[2024] FWC 823

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Cassidy Quinlan
v

Manpower Services (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A ManpowerGroup

(U2024/1607)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY MELBOURNE, 2 APRIL 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

1. On 14 February 2024, Ms Cassidy Quinlan 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).

1. The application was incomplete in that Ms Quinlan did not pay the required application fee, nor lodge a complete Form F80 – Application for waiver of the application fee (Form F80).

1. On 15 February 2024, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Quinlan’s nominated email address advising that her application required payment of the application fee or a completed Form F80 if she wished to proceed with her application. That correspondence also warned Ms Quinlan that, if payment was not made or a Form F80 was not received within 14 days, her application may be dismissed.

1. On 16 February 2024, at 10:59am, Ms Quinlan filed a complete Form F80 to the Commission. At 12:27pm an automatic SMS notification was sent to Ms Quinlan’s nominated telephone number stating: “Please action your payment request email from Fair Work Commission to pay the application fee for U2024/1607. Ignore if already actioned.”

1. On 19 February 2024, the Commission contacted Ms Quinlan on her nominated telephone number to advise her that she was not eligible for a fee waiver and that her Form F80 had been refused. Ms Quinlan advised that she was unable to discuss the application at that time. An email was sent to Ms Quinlin’s nominated email address advising her that she was not eligible for a fee waiver and that the Commission required payment of the application fee if she wished to proceed with her application. An SMS notification was also sent to Ms Quinlan’s nominated telephone number requesting that she contact the Commission.

1. On 28 February 2024, the Commission sent a reminder to make payment email to Ms Quinlan’s nominated email address. On 29 February, 6 and 18 March 2024, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Quinlan on her nominated telephone number. The calls were not answered and on the first two occasions there was a voicemail option available. Messages were left advising Ms Quinlan that payment of the required fee was still outstanding and that she was to make payment and contact the Commission urgently, or else her matter may be dismissed. To date Ms Quinlan has not paid the required application fee.

1. In relation to an application made pursuant to s.394 of the FW Act, s.395(1) provides that the application “must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.” At the time the application was made, the regulations prescribed a fee of $83.30. The regulations also allow for an application to be made for the fee to be waived.

1. Section 587(1) of the FW Act provides as follows:

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.

1. In considering all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the relevant application form was not accompanied by the prescribed fee and the application has not been made in accordance with the Act. Given the absence of the fee payment, it is likely that there is no valid application before the Commission[1] and no further action is required. A non-compliant application is directly contemplated by s.587(1)(a) of the Act. Despite the reminders and multiple requests, Ms Quinlan has not paid the application fee. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to dismiss the purported application. An Order[2] to this effect will be issued with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] Atanaskovic Hartnell Corporate Services Pty Limited t/a Atanaskovic Hartnell v Elizabeth Maree Kelly[2017] FWCFB 763 at [29].

[2] PR772912

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR772910>