DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jayde Rodgers
v
The Sparrow Group Pty Ltd
(U2019/4860)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 11 JUNE 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 30 April 2019, Ms Jayde Rodgers made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Ms Rodgers did not pay the required application fee.

[3] On 1 May 2019, the Commission attempted to telephone Ms Rodgers to seek payment of the fee. There was no answer and no opportunity to leave a voicemail message. Email correspondence was sent to Ms Rodgers the same day requesting she contact the Fair Work Commission to make payment of the required application fee.

[4] On 2 May 2019, a further attempt to telephone Ms Rodgers was made. There was no answer and no opportunity to leave a voicemail message. Email correspondence was then sent to Ms Rodgers which advised that she could apply to have the application fee waived if paying the fee would cause her serious hardship. It was noted that if she did not pay the fee or apply to have the fee waived within 14 days, her application may be dismissed.

[5] On 13 May, 15 May and 27 May 2019, further attempts to telephone Ms Rodgers were made. There was no answer and no opportunity to leave a voicemail message.

[6] To date, no response from Ms Rodgers has been received and neither payment of the application fee or application for a fee waiver has been made.

[7] 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

[8] 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

[9] Having regard to the above, I am satisfied the application was not made in accordance with the Act as Ms Rodgers has not paid the required application fee. As such, Ms Rodger’s 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

Jayde Rodgers brought an application against The Sparrow Group Pty Ltd for an unfair dismissal remedy. Rodgers claimed that her dismissal was unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Sparrow Group Pty Ltd, the respondent, argued that the dismissal was justified under the Act and was not unfair. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Rodgers' dismissal was indeed unfair. The Commission had to determine if the employer's actions were reasonable and procedurally fair. Additionally, the Commission considered whether the dismissal was based on valid reasons and if the process adhered to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. The fairness of the dismissal was assessed in light of the employer's conduct, the context of the employment relationship, and the provisions of the Fair Work Act.

The Fair Work Commission concluded that Rodgers' dismissal was unfair. The Commission found that The Sparrow Group Pty Ltd did not provide a valid reason for the dismissal, nor did they follow the appropriate procedures. The employer's conduct was deemed unreasonable, and the process lacked procedural fairness. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of Rodgers and ordered the reinstatement of her employment with the employer. The employer was also directed to compensate Rodgers for the period of lost wages and to pay additional compensation for the unfair dismissal.

Jayde Rodgers v The Sparrow Group Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established