Jacinta Pamamull v World Vision Australia

[2018] FWC 2914

[2018] FWC 2914

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections

Jacinta Pamamull
v
World Vision Australia
(C2018/1133)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC CANBERRA, 24 MAY 2018

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

[1] Ms Jacinta Pamamull (the Applicant) made an application over the telephone with the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) on 1 March 2018 under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) alleging that she had been dismissed by World Vision Australia (the Respondent) in contravention of the general protections provisions in the Act. Ms Pamamull’s application was incomplete in that a signed and completed application was not returned to the Commission.

[2] Rule 9 of the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 provides that:

“9 Telephone applications

…

(3) The Commission must prepare a written application for the person, based on the telephone application, and give the written application to the person.

(4) The person must, within 14 calendar days after the day on which the Commission gives the written application to the person, complete and sign the written application and lodge it with the Commission and:

(a) pay:

(i) for an application under section 365 of the Act—the fee mentioned in regulation 3.02 of the Regulations; or

(ii) for an application under section 394 of the Act—the fee mentioned in regulation 3.07 of the Regulations; or

(b) apply for a waiver of the fee.”

[3] On 2 March 2018 the Commission emailed Ms Pamamull a written copy of her telephone application. The correspondence requested Ms Pamamull complete and return the application and foreshadowed that if she failed to do so then her application may be dismissed.

[4] On 6 March 2018 the Commission contacted Ms Pamamull via telephone to advise that her application was incomplete. Ms Pamamull did not answer the call, subsequently a voice message was left. An email was also sent on 9 March 2018, asking her to provide the Commission with a completed application form.

[5] The Commission subsequently attempted to contact Ms Pamamull on a number of occasions, i.e. 21 March, 12 April and 26 April 2018 by telephone and email regarding her application. The correspondence foreshadowed that Ms Pamamull’s application may be dismissed unless she completed and returned her application. Despite these repeated attempts to contact Ms Pamamull the Commission has received no completed application.

[6] 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.

(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:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

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

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR607353>