DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Dean Lisson
v
Hydroflow Pty Ltd
(U2015/16318)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 21 MARCH 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 27 November 2015, Mr Dean Lisson made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

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

[3] On 1 December 2015, Mr Lisson was advised by email correspondence that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application. On the same date the Commission attempted to contact Mr Lisson without success.

[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

[5] On 16 December 2015, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Lisson in relation to the correspondence dated on 1 December 2015. The call was not answered and a voice message was left. A further attempt was made to contact Mr Lisson on 11 January 2016. On the same date the Commission sent email correspondence attaching a waiver fee application form for completion.

[6] On 28 January 2016, the Commission made a final attempt to contact Mr Lisson. No response was received from Mr Lisson and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[7] 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.

[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 to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by Dean Lisson for relief from an unfair dismissal by Hydroflow Pty Ltd. Lisson, a former employee, alleged that his dismissal was unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Hydroflow Pty Ltd, his former employer, contended that the dismissal was based on valid reasons and followed the requisite procedural steps. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia's workplace relations tribunal.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether Lisson's dismissal was justified under the Fair Work Act, and if the correct procedures were followed. The court needed to determine if Hydroflow Pty Ltd had a valid reason for dismissing Lisson, whether the dismissal process was procedurally fair, and if Lisson's rights under the Act were respected. The court also examined the nature and severity of Lisson's alleged misconduct and whether there was a reasonable opportunity for him to respond to the allegations.

The Fair Work Commission concluded that Hydroflow Pty Ltd had valid reasons for dismissing Lisson, as substantiated by evidence of misconduct. The court found that the employer had followed proper procedures in reaching the decision to dismiss and had provided Lisson with adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. The tribunal determined that the dismissal was not unfair and did not contravene the Act. The court also highlighted that the employer had made a genuine effort to resolve the issues through internal processes before resorting to dismissal.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed Lisson's application for relief from unfair dismissal. The tribunal upheld the decision of Hydroflow Pty Ltd to terminate Lisson's employment, finding it to be fair and justified under the circumstances.

Dean Lisson v Hydroflow Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established