Jordan Robinson v Plant Hire Solutions Australia

[2024] FWC 2690

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jordan Robinson
v

Plant Hire Solutions Australia

(U2024/6746)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 26 SEPTEMBER 2024

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

On 12 June 2024, Mr Jordan Robinson applied to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

The unfair dismissal application (Form F2) was incomplete in that Mr Robinson did not pay the required application fee or lodge a completed fee waiver application (Form F80). Mr Robinson lodged a Form F80 that was entirely blank.

Between 16 June 2024 and 17 July 2024, the Commission made 12 separate attempts to contact and elicit either the payment of the required application fee or a completed Form F80.

To date, Mr Robinson has not responded to the Commission’s multiple attempts to contact him. The Commission’s warnings that a failure to respond might result in the dismissal of his application has produced neither the payment of the required application fee nor a completed Form F80.

Section 395 of the Act 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
(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.” (bold text in the original)

Section 587 of the Act relevantly provides as follows:

“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.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3‑2, see section 399A.
…
(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.” (bold text in the original)

In considering all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the relevant Form F2 application form has not been accompanied by the prescribed application fee or a completed Form F80 for the Commission’s consideration and, therefore, has not been made in accordance with the Act. Given the absence of the fee payment, it is likely that there is no valid application before the Commission and no further action is required. A non-compliant application is directly contemplated by s.587(1)(a) of the Act. Despite the multiple attempts by the Commission to contact him and the reminders, Mr Robinson has not responded. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate in all the circumstances to dismiss the purported application. An order[1] to this effect will be issued with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] PR779704.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jordan Robinson applied to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal against Plant Hire Solutions Australia under the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was incomplete, lacking the required application fee or a completed fee waiver form. Despite multiple attempts by the Commission to contact Mr Robinson and seek compliance with the Act, he did not respond. The Deputy President, Clancy, considered the circumstances and determined that the application did not comply with the Act, leading to its dismissal.

The legal issue before the Deputy President was whether the application could be dismissed due to non-compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009. Section 395 of the Act mandates that applications to the Fair Work Commission must be accompanied by prescribed fees or a completed fee waiver form. Mr Robinson's application did not meet these requirements, as he neither paid the fee nor submitted a completed fee waiver form. Section 587(1)(a) of the Act allows for the dismissal of applications not made in accordance with the Act, which was directly applicable to Mr Robinson's non-compliant application.

The Deputy President found that the application was not made in accordance with the Act due to the absence of the required fee payment or a completed fee waiver form. Despite the Commission's repeated attempts to contact Mr Robinson and warn him of the consequences of non-compliance, he did not respond. The Deputy President concluded that it was appropriate to dismiss the application due to its non-compliance with the Act. Consequently, an order dismissing the application was issued.

This decision underscores the importance of compliance with procedural requirements when lodging applications with the Fair Work Commission. Failure to adhere to these requirements, despite multiple opportunities to do so, can result in the dismissal of an application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established