Julie Belz v The Trustee for the Dixis ELC Trust

[2024] FWC 2360

[2024] FWC 2360

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Julie Belz

v

The Trustee For The Dixis ELC Trust

(C2024/4502)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON SYDNEY, 3 SEPTEMBER 2024

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application dismissed.

1. On 2 July 2024, Ms Julie Belz made an application under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Ms Belz alleges that she was dismissed in contravention of the general protection provisions in Part 3-1 of the Act.

1. For the following reasons I am satisfied that Ms Belz’s application has not been made in accordance with the Act and that it is appropriate to dismiss the application.

1. In relation to an application made pursuant to s.365 of the Act, s.367(1) provides that the application “must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.” At the time the application was made, the regulations prescribed a fee of $87.20.  The regulations also allow for an application to be made for the fee to be waived.

1. Ms Belz’s application was incomplete because Ms Belz did not pay the required fee or file a completed request to waive the fee.

1. Commission staff contacted Ms Belz on the following dates:

   ·   4 July 2024 by telephone and SMS;

   ·   5 July 2024 by telephone;

   ·   8 July by telephone; and

   ·   17 July 2024 by telephone.

1. Ms Belz was advised that she must pay the filing fee or apply for a waiver if she wished to proceed with the application. Ms Belz was also warned that the application could be dismissed if the filing fee was not paid within 7 calendar days.

1. Ms Belz responded to the Commission on 18 July 2024 with another incomplete waiver form and again on 19 July 2024. 

1. On 22 July 2024 Ms Belz was contacted by a Manager from the Commission to advise that the waiver forms provided were incomplete. Ms Belz was also asked by telephone and email to contact the Commission.

1. To date there has been no further response from Ms Belz, no fee paid and no waiver request received.

1. Section 587 of the Act includes the following provisions:

“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.

…

(3)       The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a)       on its own initiative; or

(b)       on application.”

1. Ms Belz’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a)) because the prescribed fee (per s.367) has not been paid or waived. Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Ms Belz’s application.

1. Ms Belz 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). The Commission’s inquiries and warnings have largely been ignored.

1. In the circumstances I am satisfied that Ms Belz’s application should be dismissed.

1. The application is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR778877>