DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Joshua Hill
v
BG Brisbane
(U2019/11359)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 20 NOVEMBER 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 10 October 2019, Mr Joshua Hill (Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) for remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). The Applicant submitted a waiver form with his application which was incomplete.

[2] The application form filed by the Applicant in the Commission was incomplete in that did not include payment of the required fee or a completed fee waiver form in accordance with s.395 of the FW Act.

[3] Section 395 of the FW 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

[4] At 10:29am on 11 October 2019, the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant on his nominated mobile telephone number. A voicemail message was left regarding the Applicant’s incomplete fee waiver form.

[5] At 10:43am on 11 October 2019, the Commission emailed correspondence to the Applicant’s nominated email address which advised that if he wished to proceed with his application the Commission required a completed waiver form or payment of the filing fee.

[6] On 23 October 2019, the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant by telephone on his nominated mobile telephone number in relation to the correspondence dated on 11 October 2019. A voicemail message was left.

[7] At 1:06pm and 2:02pm on 29 October 2019, the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant by telephone on his nominated mobile telephone number. The line was engaged on both attempts and there was no opportunity to leave a voicemail message.

[8] To date, no response has been received from the Applicant. Payment of the required fee has not been made and a completed fee waiver form has not been filed with the Commission.

[9] 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

[10] 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.

COMMSSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR714067.

In the case of Joshua Hill versus BG Brisbane, the Fair Work Commission was asked to consider an application for an unfair dismissal remedy. The applicant, Mr Hill, sought relief following his termination of employment. He contended that his dismissal was unjust and that it constituted a breach of the provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009. BG Brisbane, the respondent, defended the termination by asserting that it was carried out in accordance with the company's policies and the applicable employment laws.

The primary legal issues that the Commission needed to address were whether Mr Hill's dismissal was indeed unfair and whether there were valid grounds for terminating his employment. This involved examining the evidence presented regarding the circumstances leading to the termination, the fairness of the process followed, and the application of relevant employment standards. The Commission also had to consider whether Mr Hill's rights under the Fair Work Act were upheld or contravened.

The Commission found that Mr Hill's dismissal was procedurally unfair as the respondent failed to follow the proper disciplinary process outlined in the employee handbook. Additionally, the evidence did not support the grounds for termination as claimed by the respondent. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the dismissal was unjust and ordered that Mr Hill be reinstated to his previous position, with appropriate compensation for the period of his unlawful termination.

Joshua Hill v BG Brisbane

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established