Christopher Black v Grill'd Pty Ltd

Case [2022] FWC 575


[2022] FWC 575

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Christopher Black
v
Grill’d Pty Ltd

(U2022/2280)

cOMMISSIONER bISSETT

melbourne, 16 MARCH 2022

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – unpaid application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

  1. On 22 February 2022, Mr Christopher Black (Applicant) 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 the Applicant did not pay the required fee or file a completed fee waiver form.

  1. On 23 February 2022, the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant on his nominated telephone number to discuss payment however, the Applicant did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting he contact the Commission. An SMS notification was also sent to the Applicant’s nominated telephone number requesting he contact the Commission to discuss payment. The Applicant did not respond.

  1. As payment had not been received the Commission sent email correspondence to the Applicant’s nominated email address advising that the application required payment of the filing fee or a completed fee waiver form if he 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. A copy of the correspondence was also sent to the Applicant’s representative.

  1. The Commission made a final attempt to contact the Applicant and his representative on 7 March 2022. The calls went unanswered. Voicemail messages were left advising that payment of the required fee was still outstanding and the matter was now at risk of being dismissed. The Commission requested a return call however the calls were not returned.

  1. To date the required fee has not been paid and a completed fee waiver form has not been received.

  1. Section 395 of the 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.

  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. 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[1] to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

<PR739334>


[1] PR739335

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Details
AGLC
Christopher Black v Grill'd Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 575
Case
[2022] FWC 575
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Christopher Black v Grill'd Pty Ltd before the Fair Work Commission (FWC) concerns an application for relief from unfair dismissal, which was dismissed for non-compliance with the filing fee requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). Mr Christopher Black filed an application under section 394 of the FW Act for an unfair dismissal remedy against Grill'd Pty Ltd. However, the application was incomplete as it did not include the requisite filing fee or a completed fee waiver form. Despite multiple attempts by the FWC to contact Mr Black and his representative to address this issue, no action was taken, and the required fee and waiver form were not provided.

The legal issues that arose in this case were whether the application could be dismissed for non-compliance with the Act's fee requirements and if the application had any reasonable prospects of success. The FWC considered the provisions of section 395 of the FW Act, which mandates that applications to the FWC must be accompanied by the prescribed fee, and section 587(1), which allows the FWC to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act. Given that the application was not accompanied by the prescribed fee, the FWC concluded that it was not made in accordance with the Act, thereby justifying dismissal under section 587(1)(a).

The FWC determined that the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act due to the failure to pay the required fee or file a completed fee waiver form. The Commission's attempts to contact Mr Black and his representative to resolve this issue were unsuccessful, and no action was taken to comply with the Act's requirements. As a result, the application was dismissed. The FWC is set to issue an order reflecting this decision shortly.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.