Darren Lloyd v Rick VanDenberg T/A Ricks Tiling Summary

[2013] FWC 8346

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Darren Lloyd
v
Rick VanDenberg T/A Ricks Tiling
(U2013/12266)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 28 OCTOBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 6 August 2013, an application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a remedy for unfair dismissal was lodged by Mr Darren Lloyd.

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

[3] On 7 August 2013, Mr Lloyd was advised by email correspondence that his application required payment of the ($65.50) filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] 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

(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.

[5] On 19 September 2013, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) attempted to contact Mr Lloyd in relation to the correspondence dated 7 August 2013, a voice message was left on Mr Lloyd’s telephone advising him that the Commission had not received payment for the application. No response was received from Mr Lloyd 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

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[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 be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Darren Lloyd, filed an application for relief from an unfair dismissal against Rick VanDenberg, trading as Ricks Tiling. Lloyd alleged that his dismissal was unjust, asserting that he had been terminated without proper cause or process. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Lloyd's dismissal was unfair within the meaning of the Fair Work Act. This involved determining if the dismissal was a contravention of the general protections provisions. The Commission also considered whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. A secondary issue was whether there were valid reasons for the dismissal that justified the action.

The Fair Work Commission carefully examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It considered the terms of Lloyd's employment, the nature of the termination, and the circumstances leading up to it. The Commission concluded that the dismissal did not meet the threshold of being harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. It found that the employer had valid reasons for terminating Lloyd's employment, primarily due to performance issues and a lack of improvement despite warnings. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed.

Darren Lloyd v Rick VanDenberg T/A Ricks Tiling

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established