Chelsea Glenn v Reel Management

[2018] FWC 2217

[2018] FWC 2217

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Chelsea Glenn
v
Reel Management
(U2018/2077)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY MELBOURNE, 20 APRIL 2018

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – Application dismissed.

[1] On 28 February 2018, Ms Chelsea Glenn made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Ms Glenn did not pay the required fee.

[3] In her Form F2 – Unfair dismissal application, Ms Glenn named her mother, Ms Joanne Glenn as her representative. The contact information for Ms Chelsea Glenn was the same as that listed Ms Joanne Glenn.

[4] On 1 March 2018, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) sought to contact Ms Glenn by telephone to request payment of the filing fee. She did not answer and she did not return the Commission’s call. On the same day, email correspondence was sent to Ms Glenn’s nominated email address advising that if she wished to proceed with her application, payment of the filing fee should be made as soon as possible. Ms Glenn was advised in the absence of any advice from her within 14 days, her application may be dismissed.

[5] On 12 March 2018, Ms Joanne Glenn sent email correspondence to the Commission asking “how do I pay the fee”.

[6] On 13 March 2018, 19 March 2018 and 21 March 2018, the Commission made further attempts to contact Ms Glenn by telephone, however she did not answer. On each occasion a voicemail message was left requesting that she return the Commission’s call. She did not return the calls.

[7] On 5 April 2018, further email correspondence was sent to Ms Glenn advising that if she wished to proceed with her application, payment of the filing fee was required. Ms Glenn was provided a further 14 days to pay the application filing fee, or to apply for a fee waiver. This letter again warned that in the absence of any advice from her within 14 days, her application may be dismissed.

[8] On 18 April 2018, the Commission made a final attempt to contact Ms Glenn by telephone. As she did not answer, a voicemail message was left requesting that she confirm whether she intended to pursue this application and asking that she contact the Commission as soon as possible. She did not return the call.

[9] To date, no response from Ms Glenn has been received.

[10] 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.

[11] 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.

[12] 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, 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
<PR602103>