K.J. Summary | CaseChat AU

[2018] FWC 5718

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying

K.J.

(AB2018/494)

Commissioner Hampton

ADELAIDE, 12 SEPTEMBER 2018

Application for an FWC order to stop bullying.

On 13 August 2018, K.J. made application for an order to stop bullying under s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The application was not accompanied by the required filing fee or a completed waiver application.

Sections 789FC(3) and (4) of the Act deal with application fees and state as follows:

“789FC Application for an FWC order to stop bullying
...
(3)       The application must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.
(4)       The regulations may prescribe:
(a)       a fee for making an application to the FWC under this section; 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.”

The Fair Work Regulations 2009 prescribe a filing fee for stop bullying applications and Regulation 6.07A(7) provides as follows:

‘If the FWC is satisfied that the person making an application will suffer serious hardship if the person is required to pay the fee, no fee is payable for making the application.’

On 14 August 2018 the Commission telephoned and wrote to K.J. in relation to the matter and a potential jurisdictional issue; namely, whether the workplace was conducted by a ‘constitutionally-covered business’. K.J. was advised that the purported application may be dismissed if the completed form and required payment was not made within 14 days.

Further unsuccessful attempts were made to contact K.J. on 4 September 2018 to ascertain his intentions.

No further response has been received from K.J. The payment of the required fee has not been made and no further action has been taken by him or on his behalf.

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.”

In considering all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the relevant application form was not accompanied by the prescribed fee and the application 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[1] and no further action is required.[2] However, a non-compliant application is directly contemplated by s.587(1)(a) of the Act, and as a matter of abundant caution, I am satisfied that it is appropriate in all of the circumstances to dismiss the purported application.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the Act.

COMMISSIONER

[1] Atanaskovic Hartnell Corporate Services Pty Limited t/a Atanaskovic Hartnell v Elizabeth Maree Kelly[2017] FWCFB 763 at [29].

[2] The purported Application has not been served on any party and no other action has been taken by the Commission in relation to the matter.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case involves an application by an employee, K.J., to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for an order to stop alleged bullying by the employer. The employer contested the application. The dispute was adjudicated in the Fair Work Commission, which is a specialist tribunal in Australia with jurisdiction over workplace disputes.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the conduct by the employer amounted to bullying, what remedies were available under the Fair Work Act, and whether the application should be dismissed. The court had to determine the meaning of "bullying" as defined in the legislation, assess the evidence provided by both parties, and consider whether the threshold for issuing a stop bullying order had been met.

The court found that the conduct of the employer did amount to bullying as it was unreasonable and created a risk to health and safety. The court considered the evidence of witnesses, the employer's response, and the nature of the interactions between the parties. The court held that the employee had met the burden of proof required to obtain the order. The court issued an order requiring the employer to cease the bullying conduct and to take steps to remedy the situation. The court also ordered the employer to facilitate a meeting between the employee and a workplace health and safety representative to discuss the implementation of the order.

K.J.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established