Christine Russell v My World Summary

[2024] FWC 1926

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.739—Dispute resolution

Christine Russell
v

My World

(C2024/4405)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 24 JULY 2024

Incomplete application to deal with a dispute.

On 29 June 2024 Ms Christine Russell made an application to the Fair Work Commission to deal with a dispute under s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

The application form filed by Ms Russell was incomplete in that it did not provide the answers for questions 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 nor was it signed or dated, and the last page was missing.

Commission staff telephoned Ms Russell on her nominated telephone number on 1 July 2024 and left a message stating that her application is incomplete and asking her to ring the Commission. This call was followed up with a letter and a SMS to Ms Russell.

On 3 July 2024 a call was made to Ms Russell and again a voicemail message was left asking her to ring the Commission.

No response was received so a final letter was sent on 3 July 2024. Ms Russell was advised in that letter that her case is very likely to be dismissed. Another SMS was sent as a follow-up on the same date.

One final telephone call was made on 8 July 2024. Once again a message was left to ring the Commission and once again Ms Russell did not respond.

The matter was referred to my chambers on 8 July 2024. My chambers also rang Ms Russell twice, left a message and sent an email urging her to make contact. All to no avail.

Significant resources have been deployed to assist Ms Russell.

Section 587 of the 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.

Note:   For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.
(2)       Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:
(a)       is frivolous or vexatious; or
(b)       has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3)       The FWC may dismiss an application:
(a)       on its own initiative; or
(b)       on application.”

Ms Russell’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a)) because the application is incomplete. Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Ms Russell’s application.

I am satisfied that Ms Russell has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application. The Commission’s inquiries, requests and warnings have been ignored. In these circumstances, I have decided to exercise my discretion to dismiss the application in accordance with s.587(1)(a) of the Act.

The application is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Christine Russell made an application to the Fair Work Commission under section 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking to resolve a dispute. The application was found to be incomplete, as it failed to answer several key questions, lacked a signature and date, and was missing its final page. Multiple attempts were made by the Commission to contact Ms Russell and provide her with the opportunity to correct the deficiencies in her application. Despite these efforts, Ms Russell did not respond, leading to the dismissal of her application. The case was referred to Deputy President Easton, who ultimately decided to exercise the discretion provided under section 587(1)(a) of the Act to dismiss the application due to its incomplete nature.

The legal issues in this case revolved around the requirements for making an application to the Fair Work Commission under the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the incomplete application met the necessary standards for consideration, and if so, whether the Commission had acted appropriately in giving Ms Russell multiple opportunities to rectify the deficiencies. The court also had to consider the discretion available under section 587 of the Act to dismiss an application if it was not made in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

Deputy President Easton examined the provisions of section 587 of the Fair Work Act, which grants the Commission the discretion to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act, or if it is frivolous or vexatious, or has no reasonable prospects of success. Given that Ms Russell's application was incomplete and she had been repeatedly asked to rectify the deficiencies without success, the Deputy President concluded that the application did not meet the necessary requirements. The court found that ample opportunity had been provided to Ms Russell to address the issues, and as she had not responded, the application was dismissed in accordance with section 587(1)(a).

In light of the above, the application made by Christine Russell was dismissed. The Deputy President emphasised the importance of adhering to the requirements of the Fair Work Act when making an application to the Commission and noted that significant resources had been expended in attempts to assist Ms Russell in rectifying the deficiencies in her application.

Christine Russell v My World

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established