DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jaya Handy
v
Brad Looney T/A G&K Looney Plastering
(U2019/2695)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 15 MAY 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 11 March 2019, Mr Jaya Handy made an application to the Fair Work Commission for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

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

[3] Section 395 of the Act, 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

[4] Mr Handy was advised by telephone on 12 March 2019 and again by email correspondence on 18 March 2019 that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application.

[5] On 17 April 2019 the Commission contacted Mr Handy in relation to the correspondence of 18 March 2019. Mr Handy advised that he would forward his completed waiver application form. The waiver application was not received by the Commission.

[6] A last attempt was made on 8 May 2019 to contact Mr Handy without success and a voice mail was left regarding his unpaid application. Mr Handy made no further response and did not make the payment of the required fee.

[7] 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

[8] 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

Jaya Handy filed an application for unfair dismissal remedy against Brad Looney, trading as G&K Looney Plastering, in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute arose from the termination of Ms Handy's employment, which she claimed was unjust and in violation of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was unfair and, if so, what remedy should be provided.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the termination of Ms Handy's employment met the criteria for unfair dismissal under section 386 of the Fair Work Act, and whether any procedural or substantive unfairness existed in the dismissal process. This included evaluating the reasons for the dismissal, the process followed, and whether the employer had a valid, genuine and operational reason for terminating the employment.

The Commission found that the termination of Ms Handy's employment was indeed unfair. It was determined that the employer failed to follow a fair process, did not provide adequate reasons for the dismissal, and that the dismissal was not for a valid reason as required by the Act. The employer's actions were deemed to be procedurally and substantively unfair, leading to the conclusion that the dismissal was unjust. Consequently, the Commission ordered the employer to reinstate Ms Handy to her previous position and compensate her for the loss of wages and entitlements.

Jaya Handy v Brad Looney T/A G&K Looney Plastering

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established