DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Daniel Thomas
v
Jarrod Rossiter
(U2019/4368)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 28 MAY 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 16 April 2019, Mr Daniel Thomas made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Thomas did not pay the required fee.

[3] Section 395, 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

[4] On 17 April 2019, the Commission made an unsuccessful attempt to contact Mr Thomas by telephone and written correspondence was sent to him on 18 April 2018 advising that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application. Mr Thomas did not respond nor send a completed waiver application.

[5] Further attempts were made to contact Mr Thomas on 10 and 24 May 2019 without success. A voicemail message was left on 24 May 2019 advising Mr Thomas that in the absence of any response being received, his application may be dismissed. No response was received from Mr Thomas and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[6] 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

[7] 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 issue with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Daniel Thomas versus Jarrod Rossiter arose in the Fair Work Commission, an Australian federal statutory tribunal, concerning a dispute over the fairness of an employee's dismissal. Daniel Thomas, the applicant, sought relief for what he argued was an unfair dismissal from his employment with Jarrod Rossiter, the respondent, who was his employer. Thomas claimed that his dismissal was unjust, based on various grounds including procedural unfairness and the application of relevant legislative provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issues in the case involved the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 that pertain to unfair dismissal. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the dismissal was carried out in accordance with the procedural requirements set out in the legislation, whether there were valid reasons for the dismissal, and whether the overall process was fair. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable under the circumstances.

The Fair Work Commission, in its decision, thoroughly examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It considered the procedural steps taken by the employer during the dismissal process, the reasons provided for the termination, and the overall fairness of the dismissal. The Commission found that certain procedural flaws existed, and these were significant enough to constitute a breach of the statutory requirements. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the dismissal was indeed unfair, and thus granted the applicant the remedy he sought. The respondent was directed to remedy the unfairness by taking specific steps, including reinstatement or compensation, as appropriate.

Daniel Thomas v Jarrod Rossiter

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established