Kristy Goodlock v Pizza Rebellion Summary

[2024] FWC 1755

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Kristy Goodlock
v

Pizza Rebellion

(U2024/4921)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 9 JULY 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

On 1 May 2024 Ms Kristy Goodlock, (the Applicant), made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

The application form filed by Ms Goodlock was incomplete in that she did not fully pay the application fee and only partially completed an application to waive the fee.

On 8 May 2024, Commission staff attempted to call Ms Goodlock to request the missing details. A voicemail message was left requesting Ms Goodlock complete the application to waive the fee and resubmit to the Commission.

Later that day, Commission staff emailed Ms Goodlock advising that she needed to provide further details as the fee waiver application was incomplete and that she should provide those details by close of business that day.

On 13 May 2024, Commission staff emailed Ms Goodlock advising again that she needs to provide further details. That email also advised that if the information was not provided within 14 days, the application may be dismissed. An SMS notification was also sent to Ms Goodlock, requesting that she contact the Commission.

On 22 May 2024, Commission staff attempted to call Ms Goodlock to request the missing details. A voicemail message was left requesting Ms Goodlock contact the Commission.

On 3 June 2024, Commission staff attempted to call Ms Goodlock. A final voicemail message was left requesting a complete waiver by close of business 4 May 2024.

To date, no response has been received and the application remains unpaid.

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.

Section 587 of the Act 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.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3‑2, see section 399A.

…

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.

Ms Goodlock’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a)) because the prescribed fee (per s.395) has not been paid or waived. Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Ms Goodlock’s application.

I am satisfied that Ms Goodlock’s application should be dismissed. Ms Goodlock has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application. The Commission’s inquiries, requests and warnings have been ignored.

I have separately made an order dismissing Ms Goodlock’s application (PR776676)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the matter of Kristy Goodlock versus Pizza Rebellion, the applicant sought a remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant, Ms Kristy Goodlock, claimed to have been unfairly dismissed by Pizza Rebellion, the respondent. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was unfair and, if so, what remedy should be granted. The Commission had to assess the application’s compliance with the requirements of the Act, including the payment of application fees or the proper completion of a fee waiver application.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the applicant's failure to fully pay the application fee or complete the fee waiver application warranted the dismissal of her application. Section 395 of the Act stipulates that an application to the Fair Work Commission must be accompanied by any prescribed fee, with provisions for fee waivers under certain circumstances. Section 587 of the Act grants the Commission the discretion to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act or lacks reasonable prospects of success. Given the applicant's repeated failure to respond to requests to complete the necessary documentation, the Commission had to decide whether the application could be dismissed for non-compliance.

The Fair Work Commission, under Deputy President Easton, found that the applicant’s application was not made in accordance with the Act as required by section 395. The applicant had not paid the prescribed fee or properly completed a fee waiver application. Despite multiple opportunities and reminders from the Commission, Ms Goodlock did not provide the necessary information. The Commission exercised its discretion under section 587(1)(a) and dismissed the application. The Commission concluded that the applicant had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiencies in her application but had failed to do so, leading to the dismissal of the application.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the application be dismissed. This decision was made in light of the applicant's disregard for the Commission's repeated requests to complete the fee waiver process or pay the application fee. The dismissal order effectively terminates the applicant's claim for an unfair dismissal remedy.

Kristy Goodlock v Pizza Rebellion

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established