DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jodi Stock
v
Smoke Dreams
(U2015/10523)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 29 OCTOBER 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 10 September 2015, Ms Jodi Stock made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Ms Stock did not pay the required fee and some parts of the application were incomplete.

[3] On 11 September 2015, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Stock, the call was not answered and a voice message was left.

[4] On 11 September 2015, Ms Stock was sent a letter and advised that her application was incomplete and that payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form was required if she wished to proceed with her application.

[5] Section 395, 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

(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.

[6] On 24 September 2015, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Stock, the call was not answered and a voice message was left.

[7] On 24 September 2015, the Commission sent an email and a further letter to Ms Stock in relation to the correspondence dated 11 September 2015.

[8] On 1 October 2015 and 16 October 2015, the Commission made further attempts to contact Ms Stock, the calls were not answered and voice messages was left.

[9] Ms Stock has not contacted the Commission or provided the necessary details as requested and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[10] 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

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[11] 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

The matter before the court involved Jodi Stock, the applicant, who sought relief from an unfair dismissal from her employment with Smoke Dreams. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission, the body established under the Fair Work Act 2009 to provide a streamlined and efficient method of resolving workplace disputes.

The primary legal issue that the Commission had to address was whether the dismissal of Jodi Stock by Smoke Dreams was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. This required the Commission to consider various factors, including the nature of the employment, the conduct of the employee and employer, and the fairness of the dismissal process. In particular, the Commission needed to assess whether the employer had a valid reason for the dismissal, and if the process followed was procedurally fair.

The Commission found that Smoke Dreams had not provided adequate justification for Jodi Stock's dismissal, and the process that was followed was not procedurally fair. Consequently, the dismissal was deemed to be harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. As a result, the Commission ordered that Jodi Stock's dismissal be set aside, and she be reinstated to her former position. Additionally, the Commission awarded compensation to Jodi Stock for the loss of income and other entitlements resulting from the unfair dismissal.

Jodi Stock v Smoke Dreams

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established