Chantel Carli v Cocca Hairdressing

[2019] FWC 1420

[2019] FWC 1420

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Chantel Carli
v
Cocca Hairdressing
(U2018/13157)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY MELBOURNE, 5 MARCH 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 18 December 2018, Ms Chantel Carli 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] Ms Carli did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 20 December 2018, the Commission attempted to telephone Ms Carli in relation to the payment of the required fee and also to seek clarification about the date of her dismissal, as two dates had been provided. A voicemail message was left seeking Ms Carli’s return call. Email correspondence was subsequently sent to Ms Carli’s nominated email address advising that if she did not pay the application fee or make an application to have the fee waived within 14 days, her application may be dismissed.

[4] On 9 January and 4 March 2019, further attempts to telephone Ms Carli were made by the Commission in relation to the payment of the required fee. On both occasions, voicemail messages were left seeking a return call.

[5] To date, Ms Carli has not responded to the Commission’s correspondence.

[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 circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, Ms Carli’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

<PR705508>