Khushboo Bhatnagar v Bank of Queensland and Me Bank

[2025] FWC 352

[2025] FWC 352

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Khushboo Bhatnagar
v

Bank of Queensland and ME Bank

(U2024/15454)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY MELBOURNE, 12 FEBRUARY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

1. Ms Khushboo Bhatnagar lodged a remedy for unfair dismissal application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) on 19 December 2024.

1. The application was incomplete in that Ms Bhatnagar did not pay the required application fee or lodge a completed Form F80 – Application for waiver of the application fee (Form F80).

1. On 30 December 2024, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Bhatnagar’s nominated email address advising her that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed Form F80 if she wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received within 7 calendar days her application may be dismissed. Later that day, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Bhatnagar on her nominated telephone number. However, the call was not answered and there was no facility to leave a voicemail.

1. On 31 December 2024, an SMS notification was sent to Ms Bhatnagar’s nominated telephone number advising her of the requirement to action the payment request email from the Commission.

1. On 7 January 2025, the Commission again emailed correspondence to Ms Bhatnagar’s nominated email address reminding her that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed Form F80 if she wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a Form F80 was not received, her application may be dismissed.

1. On 13 January 2025, the Commission contacted Ms Bhatnagar on her nominated telephone number. Ms Bhatnagar advised that she would be submitting a Form F80 later in the day.

1. As no response was received, on 22 January 2025 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Bhatnagar on her nominated telephone number. However, the call was not answered. A voicemail message was left requesting that Ms Bhatnagar contact the Commission.

1. A final attempt to contact Ms Bhatnagar on her nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 23 January 2025. The call was not answered. A voicemail message was left advising Ms Bhatnagar that payment of the required fee was still outstanding, and that her application may be dismissed.

1. To date Ms Bhatnagar has not paid the required fee or filed a completed Form F80.

1. Section 395 of the Act, which deals with application fees, 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.”

1. In relation to an application made pursuant to s.394 of the Act, s.395(1) relevantly provides that the application “must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.” Regulation 3.07 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) sets out the amount of the fee for making an unfair dismissal application.

1. 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.

…
(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a)   on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

1. The material before the Commission indicates that the application was not accompanied by the prescribed fee and that Ms Bhatnagar has not lodged a completed Form F80. I am satisfied that 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, and no further action is required. A non-compliant application is directly contemplated by s.587(1)(a) of the Act. In these circumstances and given the lack of response to the Commission’s contact, 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] PR784120.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR784119>