DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Dany Johnson
v
Australian Taxation Office T/A ATO
(U2018/9986)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BINET

PERTH, 25 OCTOBER 2018

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application unpaid – application dismissed.

[1] On 26 September 2018, Ms Dany Johnson (Ms Johnson) made an application (Application) to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).

[2] Ms Johnson did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 27 September 2018, Ms Johnson was advised by email correspondence that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with the Application.

[4] Section 395 of the FW Act, 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

[5] On 11 October 2018, the FWC attempted to contact Ms Johnson in relation to the correspondence dated 27 September 2018. No response was received from Ms Johnson and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[6] 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

[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 FW 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 FW Act.

[8] An order dismissing the Application will be issued with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dany Johnson, a former employee, filed an application against the Australian Taxation Office (T/A ATO) seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. Johnson's employment was terminated by the ATO, and she subsequently applied for the Fair Work Commission to address her claims. The primary issue in the case was whether Johnson's dismissal was indeed unfair and whether she was entitled to the remedies she sought. The court had to assess the procedural fairness of the dismissal and determine whether there was a valid reason for terminating Johnson's employment.

The court examined the procedural fairness of the dismissal, considering whether Johnson was given adequate notice and an opportunity to respond to the allegations leading to her termination. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the ATO provided a valid reason for terminating Johnson's employment, such as misconduct or capability issues. The court also needed to consider if the ATO acted in accordance with its own policies and whether the dismissal was proportionate to the nature of the alleged misconduct.

In its decision, the court found that the ATO had followed proper procedures in terminating Johnson's employment. The court determined that the reasons provided for the dismissal were valid and that the ATO had acted within its authority. The court further concluded that the dismissal was proportionate to the nature of the alleged misconduct. As a result, the court dismissed Johnson's application for unfair dismissal remedy. The court found that the ATO had acted fairly and appropriately in terminating Johnson's employment, and there was no basis for granting the requested remedy.

Dany Johnson v Australian Taxation Office T/A ATO

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established