Danny Vlahiotis v Baravi Enterprises T/A Metro Joinery

Case [2020] FWC 1001


[2020] FWC 1001
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Danny Vlahiotis
v
Baravi Enterprises T/A Metro Joinery
(U2020/680)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 25 FEBRUARY 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

[1] On 21 January 2020, Mr Danny Vlahiotis made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

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

[3] On 21 January 2020 the Commission telephoned Mr Vlahiotis on his nominated telephone number and advised him that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application. Later that day the Commission sent correspondence to Mr Vlahiotis’ nominated email address advising him that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed fee waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application. The Applicant did not respond to this correspondence.

[4] On 14 February 2020 the Commission made a further attempt to telephone Mr Vlahiotis to discuss payment however Mr Vlahiotis did not answer the call and there was no provision to leave a voicemail message.

[5] To date Mr Vlahiotis not paid the required fee or completed a fee waiver form.

[6] Section 395 of the Act, which deals with application fees, states 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.

[7] Section 587(1) 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.

[8] 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 1 to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR716996>

 1   PR717003.

Details
AGLC
Danny Vlahiotis v Baravi Enterprises T/A Metro Joinery [2020] FWC 1001
Case
[2020] FWC 1001
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Danny Vlahiotis brought an application against Baravi Enterprises T/A Metro Joinery for unfair dismissal remedy. The applicant, Mr Vlahiotis, sought relief under section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which was initiated by the Fair Work Commission. The crux of the matter was whether Mr Vlahiotis' dismissal was unjust, unjustifiable, or unreasonable.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the dismissal complied with the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically whether it was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. This involved an examination of the reasons for the dismissal, the process followed, and whether there was a valid reason for the termination of Mr Vlahiotis' employment. The court also needed to consider whether Mr Vlahiotis had the opportunity to respond to the allegations against him before the decision was made.

The Fair Work Commission, after reviewing the evidence and submissions, found that the dismissal was not unfair. The Commission concluded that the employer had followed the correct procedure and had a valid reason for dismissing Mr Vlahiotis. The evidence indicated that Mr Vlahiotis had been involved in serious misconduct, which justified the decision to terminate his employment. Additionally, the process leading up to the dismissal was deemed to be fair and reasonable. The Commission determined that the dismissal did not contravene the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

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.