Fiona Cameron v Football Queensland Ltd

Case [2016] FWC 2885


[2016] FWC 2885
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Fiona Cameron
v
Football Queensland Ltd
(C2016/612)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC

MELBOURNE, 10 MAY 2016

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – invalid application – application dismissed.

[1] Ms Fiona Cameron (the Applicant) made an application which was received by the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) on 17 March 2016 under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) alleging that she had been dismissed by Football Queensland Ltd (the Respondent) in contravention of the general protections provisions in the Act. Ms Cameron’s application was incomplete as it was not accompanied by payment of the required application fee, or by a request to have the application fee waived.

[2] On 18 March 2016, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Cameron via telephone, however Ms Cameron did not answer the call. Subsequently an email was sent asking Ms Cameron to provide the Commission with either a completed waiver form or the application fee within 14 days or the application may be dismissed.

[3] The Commission subsequently attempted to contact Ms Cameron on a number of occasions, i.e. 4 and 18 April 2016 and 2 May 2016 by telephone, letter and email regarding her application and incomplete payment. On each occasion it was foreshadowed that Ms Cameron’s application may be dismissed unless she completed the waiver form or paid the lodgement fee. Despite these repeated attempts to contact Ms Cameron the Commission has received no completed waiver form or payment of the application fee.

[4] Section 587 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.

    Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.

    (2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

      (a) is frivolous or vexatious; or
      (b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

    (3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

      (c) on its own initiative; or
      (d) on application.”

[5] In relation to an application made pursuant to s.365 of the Act, s.367 provides:

    “367 Application fees

    (1) The application 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 section 365; 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.”

[6] Ms Cameron has failed to comply with s.367(1) of the Act. Accordingly, her application has not been made in accordance with the Act and is therefore dismissed pursuant to ss.587(1)(a) of the Act. An order to that effect will be issued with this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR580130>

Details
AGLC
Fiona Cameron v Football Queensland Ltd [2016] FWC 2885
Case
[2016] FWC 2885
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fiona Cameron lodged an application with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) seeking to have contraventions involving her dismissal from Football Queensland (FQ) dealt with. FQ responded by seeking an order that the application be dismissed due to the invalidity of the application. QCAT was required to determine whether the application was valid and whether it should be dismissed. In assessing the validity of the application, QCAT considered the requirement under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) that an application to deal with contraventions must be made within one year of the contravention. The application was made over four years after the dismissal, and the applicant had not obtained an extension of time from QCAT. QCAT held that the application was invalid and dismissed the application. This was on the basis that the application was not made within the prescribed time, and the applicant had not obtained an extension of time from QCAT.
The application was dismissed with costs.

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.