DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Gary Priest
v
Siciliano Pty Ltd T/A Pressfab
(U2015/9892)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 16 NOVEMBER 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 1 August 2015, Mr Gary Priest made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Priest did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 4 August 2015, Mr Priest was advised by telephone that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application. On the same date, the Commission sent email correspondence attaching the waiver fee form.

[4] Section 395, 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.

[5] On 3 September 2015, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Priest in relation to the correspondence dated on 4 August 2015.

[6] On 3 September 2015, Mr Priest returned the Commission’s phone call and requested the waiver fee form be emailed to him again. The waiver fee form was emailed to him.

[7] On 8 September 2015 Mr Priest claimed he could not open the attachment which contained the waiver fee form. The Commission then posted the waiver form to his physical address.

[8] On 17 September 2015 Mr Priest was asked by telephone to provide the completed, signed and dated waiver fee form. Mr Priest advised he will be posting the waiver fee form to the Commission on Friday 18 September 2015.

[9] On 21 September 2015, Mr Priest’s partner was advised by telephone that the Commission required the waiver fee form and the Commission was told that the waiver fee form was posted on the 20 September 2015.

[10] The waiver form was not received by the Commission.

[11] On 30 September 2015, Mr Priest was resent the incomplete unpaid letter.

[12] On 23 October 2015, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Priest in relation to the fee waiver form. A voice message was left for Mr Priest advising that The Commission had yet to receive his fee waiver form and he was given a further 7 days to respond.

[13] On 4 November 2015, the Commission made a final attempt to contact Mr Priest.

[14] To date, no waiver application form was received from Mr Priest and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[15] 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.

[16] 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.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Gary Priest brought an application for relief from unfair dismissal against Siciliano Pty Ltd trading as Pressfab. The dispute arose from Mr Priest's termination of employment, which he contested as unjust and unfair. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia's workplace relations tribunal.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether Mr Priest's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether Pressfab had just cause for his termination. The Commission examined the procedural fairness of the dismissal process and the substantive fairness of the decision to terminate Mr Priest's employment. The central question was whether Pressfab had a valid reason for dismissing Mr Priest, and if the process followed was fair.

The Commission found that the dismissal was not procedurally fair due to the lack of proper investigation and opportunity for Mr Priest to respond to the allegations against him. It was also determined that the substantive decision to terminate was unjust as Pressfab did not have a valid reason to dismiss Mr Priest. The evidence showed that the grounds for dismissal were not substantiated, and the process lacked transparency and fairness. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of Mr Priest, finding the dismissal unfair.

As a result of the decision, the Fair Work Commission ordered Pressfab to reinstate Mr Priest to his former position and compensate him for the loss of wages and benefits from the date of dismissal until reinstatement. Pressfab was also directed to pay Mr Priest's legal costs associated with the application.

Gary Priest v Siciliano Pty Ltd T/A Pressfab

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established