Craig Bush v CWLT Logistics

Case [2022] FWC 2775


[2022] FWC 2775

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Craig Bush
v

CWLT Logistics

(U2022/9473)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 17 OCTOBER 2022

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

  1. On 23 September 2022 Mr Craig Bush 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 Mr Bush did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

  1. On 25 September 2022 the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Bush’s nominated email address advising that the application required payment of the filing fee or a completed 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 7 calendar days, the application may be dismissed.

  1. On 30 September 2022 Ms Kylie Bush contacted the Commission to advise that Mr Bush was unable to pay the filing fee and requested a copy of the fee waiver form.

  1. On 30 September 2022 the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Bush’s nominated email address with a link to the fee waiver form. 

  1. On 11 October 2022 the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Bush’s nominated email address reminding him that the application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a fee waiver form is not received, the application may be dismissed. 

  1. To date there has been no response from Mr Bush, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.

  1. Section 395 of the FW 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:

    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 prospect of success.

  2. 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


[1] PR746880

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR746878>

Details
AGLC
Craig Bush v CWLT Logistics [2022] FWC 2775
Case
[2022] FWC 2775
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Craig Bush applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for a remedy for unfair dismissal, but his application was incomplete as he did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form. The FWC notified Mr Bush of the deficiencies and warned that failure to remedy them would result in the dismissal of his application. Despite further correspondence from the FWC, Mr Bush did not respond or provide the necessary fee or waiver form. The central legal issue was whether the FWC was justified in dismissing Mr Bush’s application for unfair dismissal under section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) because it was not made in accordance with the Act.

The Commissioner concluded that the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act due to the non-payment of the prescribed fee and the absence of a completed waiver form. The Commissioner found that there was no reasonable prospect of success for Mr Bush’s application, and as such, the application was dismissed under section 587(1)(a) of the FW Act. The Commissioner’s reasoning was that the statutory requirements for filing an application with the FWC must be adhered to, and the failure to meet these requirements justified the dismissal of the application. An order will be issued to reflect the dismissal of Mr Bush’s application.

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.