Elizabeth Smith v Vaucluse Agriculture

Case [2022] FWC 751


[2022] FWC 751

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Elizabeth Smith
v
Vaucluse Agriculture

(U2022/2075)

cOMMISSIONER bISSETT

melbourne, 6 april 2022

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – unpaid application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

  1. On 17 February 2022, Ms Elizabeth Smith (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 it did not include payment of the required fee or a completed fee waiver form.

  1. On 18 February 2022, the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant on her nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee however, the Applicant did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting she contact the Commission to make payment.

  1. Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to the Applicant’s nominated email address advising that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received within 14 days, the application may be dismissed. 

  1. A final attempt to contact the Applicant was made by the Commission on 16 March 2022 to obtain payment or a completed fee waiver form. The call was not answered and a voicemail message was left advising that payment of the required fee was still outstanding and the matter was now at risk of being dismissed..

  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 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] PR740065

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR740019>

Details
AGLC
Elizabeth Smith v Vaucluse Agriculture [2022] FWC 751
Case
[2022] FWC 751
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Ms Elizabeth Smith sought relief for unfair dismissal against her former employer, Vaucluse Agriculture. The application was made under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, but it was incomplete as it lacked the necessary fee payment or a completed fee waiver form. Despite multiple attempts by the Commission to contact Ms Smith regarding the outstanding fee, no payment or waiver form was received, leading to the application being dismissed.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the application could be dismissed for non-compliance with the fee requirements under section 395 of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission had to determine whether the application was made in accordance with the Act given the absence of the requisite fee or waiver form. Furthermore, the Commission had to consider if the dismissal was justified under section 587(1)(a) of the Act, which allows for the dismissal of applications not made in accordance with the Act.

In determining the matter, Commissioner Bissett concluded that the application was not made in accordance with the Act as it did not include the prescribed fee or a completed fee waiver form. The Commissioner found that the multiple attempts to contact Ms Smith and the warnings provided did not alter the fact that the application was incomplete. Therefore, the application was dismissed pursuant to section 587(1)(a) of the Act. An order to this effect will be issued shortly.

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.