Gabriel Peterson Das Chagas v MacMahon Contractors Summary

[2024] FWC 2601

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.372—General protections

Gabriel Peterson Das Chagas
v

MacMahon Contractors

(C2024/5655)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 20 SEPTEMBER 2024

Application to deal with other contraventions dispute – application dismissed.

On 11 August 2024 Mr Gabriel Peterson Das Chagas made a general protections application not involving dismissal to the Fair Work Commission under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Mr Peterson Das Chagas’ application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a)) because the prescribed fee (per s.373) has not been paid or waived. Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Mr Peterson Das Chagas’ application.

Mr Peterson Das Chagas has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [15]-[16] and the cases cited therein).

In the circumstances I am satisfied that Mr Peterson Das Chagas’ application should be dismissed.

I order that Mr Peterson Das Chagas’ application be dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gabriel Peterson Das Chagas brought a general protections application against MacMahon Contractors to the Fair Work Commission under section 372 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking to address an issue that did not involve dismissal. The application was lodged on 11 August 2024, but it was deficient because the prescribed fee required under section 373 of the Act was neither paid nor waived. This non-compliance with section 587(1)(a) of the Act provided the Commission with the discretion to dismiss the application.

The legal issue before the Deputy President, Easton, was whether to exercise the discretion to dismiss the application due to the non-payment of the prescribed fee, despite Mr Das Chagas having been given multiple opportunities to rectify this deficiency. The Deputy President referred to the case of Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 and other cited cases to support the decision to dismiss the application. After considering the circumstances and the ample opportunity given to Mr Das Chagas to address the fee issue, Deputy President Easton concluded that the application should indeed be dismissed.

In dismissing the application, Deputy President Easton noted that the prescribed fee had not been paid or waived, and that Mr Das Chagas had been provided with sufficient opportunities to rectify this issue. Consequently, the Deputy President ordered that Mr Das Chagas' application be dismissed. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when lodging applications with the Fair Work Commission.

Gabriel Peterson Das Chagas v MacMahon Contractors

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established