Isa Graham v Solar City Office Equipment

[2014] FWC 5711

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Isa Graham
v
Solar City Office Equipment
(U2014/8426)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 20 AUGUST 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 20 July 2014, Ms Isa Graham made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Ms Graham did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 23 July 2014, Ms Graham was advised by email correspondence that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application.

[4] In response to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission)’s correspondence, Ms Graham advised by email that she would make payment the following day.

[5] On 29 July 2014, Ms Graham enquired whether she was able to lodge additional documents to her application. The Commission, in response, reminded Ms Graham that her application remained unpaid.

[6] Further attempts to contact Ms Graham by telephone were made on 1 August 2014 without success and on 5 August 2014 further correspondence was sent to her in relation to payment of the application.

[7] 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

[8] On 11 August 2014, Ms Graham wrote to the Commission enquiring about a 21 day period. The Commission responded to Ms Graham on 12 August 2014 and advised once again that payment was required or if needed, a waiver form could be provided to her. Ms Graham was advised that if she did not make the payment within seven days her application may be dismissed.

[9] Ms Graham was unresponsive to this correspondence and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[10] 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

[11] 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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Isa Graham versus Solar City Office Equipment, the dispute arose in the Fair Work Commission, a tribunal responsible for resolving workplace disputes under the Fair Work Act 2009. Isa Graham, the applicant, sought relief from an unfair dismissal after being terminated by Solar City Office Equipment, the respondent. Graham alleged that her dismissal was unjust and that it contravened the provisions of the Act, particularly regarding procedural fairness and the absence of a valid reason for termination.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the dismissal was procedurally fair and if there was a valid reason for the termination. Graham contended that the respondent failed to follow proper procedures and that her dismissal was without a valid reason. Solar City Office Equipment, on the other hand, argued that Graham's dismissal was justified based on her poor performance and that the necessary procedures were followed. The Commission was required to assess the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine if the dismissal was fair and if it complied with the statutory requirements.

After examining the evidence and considering the arguments, the Commission found that Graham's dismissal was not procedurally fair. The respondent had not provided adequate opportunities for Graham to improve her performance or address the issues raised against her. Additionally, the Commission determined that the dismissal was not based on a valid reason, as the evidence did not sufficiently support the grounds for termination. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of Graham, finding that her dismissal was unfair and ordering reinstatement or, alternatively, compensation. The decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the need for valid reasons when dismissing an employee.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established