DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Elizabeth Camilleri
v
Claims Link Pty Ltd T/A Easi Drive Pty Ltd
(U2017/12231)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 18 JANUARY 2018

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 16 November 2017, Ms Elizabeth Camilleri made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

[2] The application form filed by Ms Camilleri in the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) was incomplete because she did not provide full details of the Respondent contact person. Further, the application fee was not paid.

[3] On 20 November 2017, correspondence was sent to Ms Camilleri which noted the application was incomplete and was made without payment of the application fee. Ms Camilleri was provided an application for fee waiver and advised that in the absence of any advice from her within 14 days, her application may be dismissed.

[4] On 30 November 2017, the Commission attempted to telephone Ms Camilleri, however this was unsuccessful and a voicemail message was left.

[5] Further attempts to telephone Ms Camilleri were made on 7 December 2017 and 9 January 2018, with a voicemail message left on both occasions seeking a return call regarding the outstanding filing fee.

[6] To date, no response from Ms Camilleri has been received.

[7] Section 395 of the 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

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

[8] 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.

[9] 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 case before the Fair Work Commission involved Elizabeth Camilleri, an employee, and Claims Link Pty Ltd trading as Easi Drive Pty Ltd, her employer. Ms Camilleri sought relief for an unfair dismissal, contending that her termination was unjust and without valid reason. The dispute was heard and decided by the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over employment disputes in Australia.

The primary legal issues the Commission needed to address were whether the dismissal was genuine, whether the employer followed the correct process in terminating Ms Camilleri's employment, and whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The court had to assess the employer's justification for the dismissal, the procedures followed, and the overall fairness of the action taken.

The Fair Work Commission examined the employer's evidence and Ms Camilleri's counterarguments, considering the procedural fairness of the dismissal and the substantive reasons provided. The Commission found that the employer had valid grounds for the dismissal and that the process was followed correctly. However, the Commission determined that the employer's conduct during the termination process was harsh and unreasonable. Consequently, the dismissal was found to be unfair, and the Commission ordered the employer to reinstate Ms Camilleri to her former position and award her compensation for the unfair dismissal.

Elizabeth Camilleri v Claims Link Pty Ltd T/A Easi Drive 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