Joshua Miller v Health Care Australia Pty Ltd

[2024] FWC 2860

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.372—General protections

Joshua Miller
v

Health Care Australia Pty Ltd

(C2024/5962)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 15 OCTOBER 2024

Application to deal with other contraventions dispute – application dismissed.

On 21 August 2024 Mr Joshua Miller made a general protections application not involving dismissal to the Fair Work Commission under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Mr Miller’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a)) because the prescribed fee (per s.373) has not been paid or waived. Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Mr Miller’s application.

Mr Miller has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [15]-[16] and the cases cited therein).

In the circumstances I am satisfied that Mr Miller’s application should be dismissed.

I order that Mr Miller’s application be dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joshua Miller brought an application to the Fair Work Commission under section 372 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking protection from actions taken by his employer, Health Care Australia Pty Ltd, that he considered to be in breach of general protections provisions. The application was made without the requisite fee being paid or waived, a requirement stipulated by section 587(1)(a) of the Act. This procedural deficiency led to the Deputy President, Easton, considering whether to dismiss the application in accordance with the discretion provided by section 587 of the Act.

The central legal issue before the Deputy President was whether to exercise the discretion to dismiss Mr Miller's application due to the non-payment of the prescribed fee, despite Mr Miller having been given multiple opportunities to rectify this deficiency. The Deputy President referred to previous cases, such as Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge, to support the decision to dismiss the application if the procedural requirement was not satisfied. The Deputy President found that Mr Miller's application did not comply with the Act's requirements, and despite the opportunities provided, Mr Miller failed to meet the necessary procedural steps.

Following the analysis of the procedural requirements and the precedent set by similar cases, the Deputy President concluded that Mr Miller's application should be dismissed. The Deputy President ordered that Mr Miller's application be dismissed and no further action be taken on it. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when lodging applications with the Fair Work Commission and highlights the Commission's role in ensuring compliance with the Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established