Jacob Redinger v Tk Maxx

[2025] FWC 2615

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.372—General protections

Jacob Redinger
v

Tk Maxx

(C2025/5767)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BELL

MELBOURNE, 5 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application to deal with other contraventions dispute – dismissal under s.587(1)(a) at the Commission’s initiative.

On 21 June 2025, Mr Jacob Redinger made a general protections application under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that Mr Redinger’s application has not been made in accordance with the Act and that it is appropriate to dismiss the application.

Mr Redinger’s application was incomplete because he did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver application form to request the Commission to waive the fee.

Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Redinger on 24 June 2025, by voicemail and email.

On 3 July 2025, the Commission received an email from Mr Redinger who indicated an intention to attach an “updated f80 form”.

Commission staff then attempted to contact Mr Redinger on 4 July 2025, by voicemail, to inform him that the purported updated Form F80 fee waiver form was in fact his Form F8C application form.

As no response from Mr Redinger was received, Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Redinger again on:

8 July 2025, by email;
11 July 2025, by email; and
17 July 2025, by voicemail.

On 13 August 2025, Commission staff emailed Mr Redinger requiring a response by 18 August 2025. He was advised that if no response was received his application may be dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the Act because it has not been made in accordance with the Act. No response has been received, the fee has not been paid, and no completed waiver application form has been received.

Mr Redinger has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application. He has not responded to multiple enquiries and warnings that his application may be dismissed. I am satisfied that Mr Redinger’s application should be dismissed. I make the following order:

The application under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Redinger on 21 June 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jacob Redinger v Tk Maxx, Mr Redinger submitted a general protections application to the Fair Work Commission under section 372 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application related to a dismissal and was made against his former employer, Tk Maxx. The Commission was required to determine whether the application should be dismissed because it did not comply with the statutory requirements.

The central issue before the court was whether Mr Redinger's application was made in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine if the application was complete and if the required fee was paid or if a completed waiver application form had been filed. The court was also required to consider whether Mr Redinger had adequately responded to the Commission's multiple attempts to contact him regarding the deficiencies in his application.

Deputy President Bell found that Mr Redinger's application was incomplete as he failed to pay the required fee or submit a completed waiver application form. Despite multiple attempts by Commission staff to contact Mr Redinger via voicemail and email, he did not respond to the warnings or rectify the deficiencies. The court held that Mr Redinger had been given sufficient opportunities to address the issues with his application, but he failed to do so. Consequently, the court dismissed the application under section 587(1)(a) of the Act for not being made in accordance with the Act.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application made by Mr Redinger on 21 June 2025. The dismissal was based on the failure to comply with the statutory requirements, including the non-payment of the required fee and the absence of a completed waiver application form. The court made it clear that Mr Redinger had been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiencies in his application, but he did not respond to multiple warnings and enquiries.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established