DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections

Jessica Wilson
v
Unique Scents T/A Unique Scents Pty Limited
(C2017/2135)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC

CANBERRA, 29 NOVEMBER 2017

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

[1] Ms Jessica Wilson (the Applicant) made an application which was received by the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) on 20 April 2017 under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) alleging that she had been dismissed by Unique Scents T/A Unique Scents Pty Limited (the Respondent) in contravention of the general protections provisions in the Act. Ms Wilson’s application was incomplete in that no payment of the lodgment fee or application for waiver of the lodgment fee was completed.

[2] On 21 April 2017 the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) contacted Ms Wilson via email asking that Ms Wilson provide the Commission with a completed waiver form or lodgment fee within 14 days or the application may be dismissed.

[3] The Commission subsequently attempted to contact Ms Wilson on a number of occasions, i.e. 29, 30, 5, 6 June and 19 July 2017 by telephone and email regarding her incomplete and unpaid application. On each occasion it was foreshadowed that Ms Wilson’s application may be dismissed unless she completed the completed waiver form or paid the lodgement fee. Despite these repeated attempts to contact Ms Wilson the Commission has received no completed waiver form or payment of the lodgment fee.

[4] 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

(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.”

[5] In relation to an application made pursuant to s.365 of the Act, s.367 provides:

“367 Application fees

(1) The application 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 section 365; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

refunded.”

[6] Ms Wilson has failed to comply with s.367(1) of the Act. Accordingly, her application has not been made in accordance with the Act and is therefore dismissed pursuant to ss.587(1)(a) of the Act. An order to that effect will be issued with this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jessica Wilson v Unique Scents T/A Unique Scents Pty Limited involved a claim by an employee, Jessica Wilson, against her former employer, Unique Scents Pty Limited. Wilson alleged that she was dismissed without just cause or reason, contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute was heard and determined by the Fair Work Commission, Australia’s national workplace relations tribunal. The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Wilson’s application to deal with the alleged contraventions of her dismissal was validly made and substantiated.

In addressing the validity of Wilson’s application, the Commission examined the procedural requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act. It was noted that Wilson’s application did not comply with the necessary procedural steps, including the failure to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate her claims of unjust dismissal. The Commission further considered that the application did not meet the jurisdictional criteria as set out in the Act. As a result, the Commission determined that the application was invalid and did not meet the requirements for the Commission to proceed with the matter.

Consequently, the Fair Work Commission dismissed Jessica Wilson's application. The dismissal was based on the findings that the application did not comply with the necessary procedural and jurisdictional requirements. The Commission held that the failure to substantiate the claims with appropriate evidence and to follow the correct procedural steps rendered the application invalid. As a result, the Commission was unable to entertain the claims of unjust dismissal and dismissed the application accordingly.

Jessica Wilson v Unique Scents T/A Unique Scents Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established