| [2022] FWC 597 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Lucy Hillman
v
Worksense Haircutters
(U2022/2538)
| cOMMISSIONER bISSETT | MELBOURNE, 17 MARCH 2022 |
Application for relief from unfair dismissal – unpaid application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.
On 28 February 2022, Ms Lucy Hillman (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 (FW Act).
The application was incomplete in that the Applicant did not pay the required fee or file a completed fee waiver form.
On 1 March 2022, the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant on her nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee however the Applicant did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting she contact the Commission to make payment.
Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to the Applicant’s nominated email address advising that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed fee waiver form 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 14 days, the application may be dismissed.
On 2 March 2022 the Applicant contacted the Commission. The Applicant was advised that correspondence was sent to her on 1 March 2022 advising that if she fails to make payment within 14 days from the date of the correspondence her application being dismissed. The Applicant advised she would contact the Commission again to make payment.
As payment had not been received on 15 March 2022 the Commission made a final attempt to contact the Applicant on her nominated telephone number to discuss payment. The call went unanswered. A voicemail message was left advising that payment of the required fee was still outstanding and the matter was now at risk of being dismissed.
To date the required fee has not been paid and a completed fee waiver form has not been received.
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(1) of the FW 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.
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 shortly.
COMMISSIONER
[1] PR739412
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR739411>
- AGLC
- Lucy Hillman v Worksense Haircutters [2022] FWC 597
- Case
- [2022] FWC 597
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the Commission was whether Ms Hillman's application could be dismissed for non-compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). Specifically, the Commission needed to determine whether the application was made in accordance with the FW Act, as required by s.395 of the Act, which mandates that an application to the Fair Work Commission must be accompanied by the prescribed fee. Additionally, s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act provides that the Commission may dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act.
The Commission found that Ms Hillman's application was not made in accordance with the FW Act because it was not accompanied by the required fee. Despite multiple attempts to contact Ms Hillman to advise her of the need to pay the fee or submit a fee waiver form, she did not take the necessary action to rectify the situation. The Commission concluded that the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act, and therefore, it was dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. The Commission ordered that an Order be issued to this effect.
This decision highlights the importance of complying with the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act when lodging an application with the Fair Work Commission. Failure to adhere to these requirements, such as the payment of the prescribed fee, may result in the dismissal of the application, regardless of the merits of the case. The decision also underscores the Commission's commitment to ensuring that applications are made in accordance with the FW Act and that resources are not wasted on applications that do not meet the necessary requirements.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.