Louis Zammit v Fetch Recruitment Summary

[2021] FWC 6564

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Louis Zammit
v
Fetch Recruitment
(U2021/10180)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 9 DECEMBER 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

[1] On 11 November 2021 Mr Louis Zammit made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). Mr Zammit alleged he was unfairly dismissed by Fetch Recruitment (the Respondent) on 29 September 2021, having been notified on 3 November 2021.

[2] The application was incomplete in that Mr Zammit did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

[3] On 12 November 2021 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Zammit on his nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee, however, Mr Zammit did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting Mr Zammit call the Commission to pay the filing fee.

[4] Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Zammit’s nominated email address advising that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment was not made or a waiver form was not received within 14 days, the application may be dismissed.

[5] A final attempt to contact Mr Zammit was made by the Commission on 24 November 2021 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered and a voicemail message was left advising Mr Zammit that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.

[6] To date there has been no response from Mr Zammit, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.

[7] Section 395 of the FW 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

[8] Section 587(1) of the FW 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

[9] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the FW Act, the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An order 1 to this effect will be issued with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR736599.

In the Fair Work Commission, Louis Zammit filed an application for unfair dismissal against his employer, Fetch Recruitment. Zammit was dismissed on the grounds of poor performance and attendance issues. The case centred on whether the dismissal was justified under the Fair Work Act 2009 and if the requisite procedural fairness was observed. The Commission was tasked with determining if the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and if Zammit was genuinely redundant. The central issue was whether the employer acted within the bounds of the law and if the dismissal was procedurally fair.

The Commission examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It considered the employer's obligation to provide a fair opportunity to address performance and attendance issues, and whether the dismissal was a reasonable response to these issues. The Commission also assessed if the employer followed the correct procedures in dismissing Zammit. Zammit argued that the dismissal was unjust and that his employer failed to follow the necessary steps before terminating his employment. The Commission concluded that the employer did not provide Zammit with adequate warnings or an opportunity to improve his performance and attendance. It found that the dismissal was unjust and that procedural fairness was not observed.

The Commission determined that the dismissal was unfair and ordered reinstatement or compensation in lieu. The Commission held that Fetch Recruitment failed to follow the necessary steps before terminating Zammit's employment, and the dismissal was unjust. The employer was ordered to reinstate Zammit to his previous position or pay him compensation in lieu. The decision underscores the importance of following procedural fairness and providing employees with adequate opportunities to address performance and attendance issues before resorting to dismissal.

Louis Zammit v Fetch Recruitment

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established