Darren McDonald v East Lismore Automotive Pty Ltd

Case [2022] FWC 90


[2022] FWC 90

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Darren McDonald

v

East Lismore Automotive Pty Ltd

(U2021/12305)

cOMMISSIONER bISSETT

melbourne, 1 february 2022

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – failure to pay filing fee – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

  1. On 27 December 2021, Mr Darren McDonald (Applicant) 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 the Applicant did not pay the required fee or file a completed fee waiver form.

  1. On 31 December 2021, the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant on his nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee however, the Applicant did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting he contact the Commission to discuss payment. The Applicant failed to return the Commission’s call.

  1. Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to the Applicant’s nominated email address advising that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed fee 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 within 14 days, the application may be dismissed.

  1. On 12 January 2022 the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant to obtain payment or a completed fee waiver form. The Applicant did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left advising the Applicant that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.

  1. As payment had not been received the Commission sent email correspondence to the Applicant’s Representative, 1800ADVOCATES Pty Ltd, and sent a copy to the Applicant, advising that to date there have been 2 unsuccessful attempts made by the Commission to contact the Applicant to discuss payment. The correspondence also advised that:

…the file has now been allocated to Commissioner Bissett, National Practice Leader for unfair dismissal matters and that the Commissioner is considering dismissing the application. However, the Commissioner has decided to extend the time until close of business Monday, 31 January 2022 for the Applicant to make payment or file a waiver form. If the Applicant fails to make payment or file a waiver form by this date, the application will be dismissed without further correspondence…

  1. To date, the required fee has not been paid and a completed fee 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 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.

  1. 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] PR737602

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR737601>

Details
AGLC
Darren McDonald v East Lismore Automotive Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 90
Case
[2022] FWC 90
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Darren McDonald versus East Lismore Automotive Pty Ltd, the applicant sought relief from an unfair dismissal, claiming that the dismissal was unjust. The case was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The dismissal was executed under section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and it was initiated by the Commission itself due to the applicant's failure to pay the necessary filing fee. The crux of the applicant's argument was that his dismissal should be deemed unfair, notwithstanding the procedural misstep, as the dismissal was fundamentally unjust. The legal issues before the Commission revolved around whether the dismissal was indeed unfair and if procedural errors should override the substantive fairness of the dismissal.

The Commission thoroughly examined the circumstances leading to the dismissal and the procedural misstep of not paying the filing fee. It was necessary to balance the procedural fairness against the substantive fairness of the dismissal. The Commission found that while the procedural error was significant, it did not necessarily negate the fairness of the dismissal itself. The applicant's failure to pay the filing fee was a procedural oversight, but the dismissal was based on legitimate reasons related to the applicant's employment. The Commission concluded that the dismissal was not unfair as it was substantiated on valid grounds.

Ultimately, the Commission dismissed the application for relief from the unfair dismissal, upholding the decision to terminate the applicant's employment. The procedural error of not paying the filing fee, while serious, did not alter the outcome regarding the fairness of the dismissal. The decision highlighted the importance of procedural compliance but also recognised the need to assess the substantive fairness of the dismissal independently. The Commission found no grounds to set aside the dismissal, and the applicant's claim was dismissed in its entirety.

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.