Dylon Mclean v The Trustee for Hunter Poultry Trust Summary

[2025] FWC 1913

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Dylon Mclean
v

The Trustee For Hunter Poultry Trust

(C2025/5009)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL

MELBOURNE, 7 JULY 2025

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – dismissal under s.587(1)(a) at the Commission’s initiative.

Mr Dylon McLean lodged a general protections application under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) on 28 May 2025.

The application was incomplete because Mr McLean neither paid, nor applied for a waiver of, the prescribed application fee.

Commission staff attempted to contact Mr McLean on:

·     29 May 2025, by voicemail;
·     30 May 2025, by SMS and email;
·     3 and 10 June 2025, by telephone.

On 26 June 2025, my Chambers emailed Mr McLean requiring a response by 3 July 2025. He was advised that if no response was received his application may be dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the Act because it has not been made in accordance with the Act. No response has been received, the fee has not been paid, and no waiver request has been received.

Mr McLean has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application. He has not responded to multiple enquiries and warnings that his application may be dismissed. I am satisfied that Mr McLean’s application should be dismissed. I make the following order:

1. The application under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Daniel McLean on 28 May 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dylon McLean lodged a general protections application under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was incomplete, as McLean neither paid nor applied for a waiver of the prescribed application fee. The Commission made multiple attempts to contact McLean to address the incomplete application, including voicemails, SMS, email, and phone calls. Despite these efforts, McLean did not respond to any of the communication attempts, nor did he take any action to rectify the deficiency in his application. Consequently, the Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission, O’Neill, was required to decide whether to dismiss the application for non-compliance with the Act.

The primary legal issue for the Deputy President was whether McLean’s failure to pay the application fee or seek a waiver justified the dismissal of his application under section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act. Given that McLean was repeatedly contacted and warned about the consequences of not addressing the incomplete application, the Deputy President needed to assess whether McLean had been given sufficient opportunity to comply with the requirements of the Act.

In making the decision, the Deputy President considered the multiple attempts by the Commission to contact McLean and the warnings that his application might be dismissed if the fee was not paid or a waiver applied for. The Deputy President was satisfied that McLean had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in his application but had failed to do so. Consequently, the Deputy President dismissed the application, concluding that it had not been made in accordance with the Act.

The Deputy President made an order dismissing the application under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009, filed by Dylon McLean on 28 May 2025. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act and the consequences of failing to do so.

Dylon Mclean v The Trustee for Hunter Poultry Trust

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established