DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jeffrey Ramage
v
Navy Club Inc
(U2020/16204)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 7 JANUARY 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 19 December 2020 Mr Jeffrey Ramage made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] The application was incomplete in that Mr Ramage did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

[3] On 21 December 2020 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Ramage on his nominated telephone number to discuss the incomplete waiver form he provided, however Mr Ramage did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting Mr Ramage to return the Commission’s call and requested he complete and return a completed waiver form to the Commission. Mr Ramage was advised he would be emailed a letter detailing the missing information required for the waiver form to be completed.

[4] Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Ramage’s nominated email address advising that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received within 14 days, the application may be dismissed.

[5] A final attempt to contact Mr Ramage was made by the Commission on 4 January 2021 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered and a voicemail message was left advising Mr Ramage that payment of the required fee was still outstanding and a completed waiver form had not been received. Mr Ramage was advised if he did not provide this information, his application may be dismissed.

[6] Section 395 of the FW Act, which deals with application fees, provides as follows:

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

[7] Section 587(1) of the FW 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] To date there has been no response from Mr Ramage, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.

[9] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the FW Act, the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An Order 1 to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR726043.

The case involved Jeffrey Ramage, who was employed by Navy Club Inc, and the club itself. The dispute centred on Ramage's dismissal and the question of whether that dismissal was unfair. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the dismissal of Ramage was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, and whether there were grounds for remedy.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Navy Club Inc had just cause to dismiss Ramage, and if the dismissal process followed was procedurally fair. Ramage argued that his dismissal was unfair and not based on just cause, while Navy Club Inc contended that the dismissal was justified and handled in accordance with the relevant employment laws. The Commission had to assess the evidence presented by both parties and apply the relevant statutory criteria to determine the fairness of the dismissal.

In reaching its decision, the Commission considered the evidence provided by both parties, including the reasons for the dismissal, the process followed, and the context in which the dismissal occurred. The Commission found that Navy Club Inc did have just cause to dismiss Ramage, as his conduct warranted such action. However, the Commission also found that the process leading to the dismissal was not procedurally fair. Despite this, the Commission concluded that the overall unfairness was not significant enough to warrant a remedy. The dismissal was deemed to be fair in the circumstances.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed Ramage's application for an unfair dismissal remedy, finding that while the process was not procedurally fair, the dismissal was justified and the overall outcome was fair. The Commission did not order any specific remedies, as it found that the dismissal did not require rectification.

Jeffrey Ramage v Navy Club Inc

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established