| [2023] FWC 3347 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections
Lukas Ives
v
Drill Engineering & Pastoral Co. Pty. Ltd.
(C2023/6655)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | MELBOURNE, 13 DECEMBER 2023 |
Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application dismissed.
On 26 October 2023, Mr Lukas Ives (applicant) made an application under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). The applicant alleges that he was dismissed in contravention of the general protection provisions in Part 3-1 of the Act.
The application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) (regulations) or by a completed application for waiver of the lodgement fee (waiver application). The applicant has not responded to correspondence from the Commission alerting him to this deficiency, nor has the deficiency been rectified. I have decided to dismiss the application for the following reasons.
Context
On 1 November 2023, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Ives’ 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. The email further stated as follows:
“Please pay the application fee within 7 calendar days (or apply to have the fee waived) so we can progress your case.
If you don’t make payment within 7 days your application may be dismissed.”
On 6 November 2023, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Ives’ nominated email address reminding that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with the application. The correspondence instructed the applicant on how to pay the application fee or make a waiver application and further stated as follows:
“Reminder: You need to pay the application fee (or apply to have the fee waived) or your application may be dismissed.”.
A final attempt to contact Mr Ives on his nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 7 November 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. Mr Ives advised that he was not available to make payment at the time and would make payment by 9 November 2023.
To date, the applicant has not paid the lodgement fee or filed a completed waiver application.
Legislative framework
In relation to an application made pursuant to s.365 of the Act, s.367(1) provides that the application “must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.” At the time the application was made, the regulations prescribed a fee of $83.30. The regulations also allow for an application to be made for the fee to be waived.
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.
…
(2) Despite paragraphs (1) (b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773, or an application under section 527F that does not consist solely of an application for a stop sexual harassment order, on the ground that the application:
(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or
(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.
(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.
Consideration and conclusion
The applicant has neither paid the lodgement fee nor sought a fee waiver. Accordingly, the application is not made in accordance with s.367 of the Act.
The applicant has taken no action to address the deficiency despite being notified of it by the Commission on multiple occasions. In these circumstances, I have decided to exercise my discretion to dismiss the application in accordance with s.587(1)(a) of the Act.
The application is dismissed.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR769410>
- AGLC
- Lukas Ives v Drill Engineering & Pastoral Co. Pty. Ltd [2023] FWC 3347
- Case
- [2023] FWC 3347
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue before the Commission was whether the applicant had satisfied the procedural requirements of the Act when he lodged his application. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine whether the applicant had paid the required fee or made an application for a waiver of the fee, as required by s.367 of the Act. The applicant had failed to do either, despite multiple notices from the Commission.
The Commission exercised its discretion to dismiss the application pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act, finding that the application was not made in accordance with the Act as it lacked the required fee or waiver application. The applicant had been notified of the deficiency and had been given ample opportunity to rectify it, but he failed to take any action to do so. The Commission concluded that the application was properly dismissed as it did not comply with the legislative requirements.
The application is dismissed.
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.