DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Luke Garland
v
Moores Auto Electrical and Mechanical
(U2016/6178)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 1 JUNE 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 11 April 2016, Mr Luke Garland made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Garland did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 14 April 2016, Mr Garland was advised by emailed correspondence that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] Section 395 of the Act, which deals with application fees, provides:

“(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

[5] On 14 and 28 April 2016 the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) contacted Mr Garland by telephone in relation to the correspondence dated on 14 April 2016. During these telephone conversations, he confirmed that he would make payment of his application as soon as possible.

[6] On 3 May 2016, further correspondence was sent to Mr Garland. This was followed up by a telephone call on 25 May 2016.

[7] Mr Garland has not made payment of the required fee or lodged a completed waiver form.

[8] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

“(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.”

[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 Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Luke Garland filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal against Moores Auto Electrical and Mechanical. Garland claimed that his dismissal was unjust and contrary to the principles of procedural fairness. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central issue before the Commission was whether Garland's dismissal was indeed unfair and whether Moores Auto Electrical and Mechanical had failed to adhere to the necessary procedural requirements when terminating his employment.

The Commission examined whether Garland's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable under the relevant legislative framework. It also assessed whether Moores Auto Electrical and Mechanical provided him with an opportunity to respond to the allegations leading to his dismissal. The Commission reviewed the evidence presented by both parties, including the company's decision-making process, the nature of the allegations against Garland, and the steps taken to ensure a fair process. Ultimately, the Commission determined that the dismissal was not unfair as the employer had followed proper procedures and acted reasonably in terminating Garland's employment. The application for relief was therefore dismissed.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission found that Moores Auto Electrical and Mechanical acted within their rights in dismissing Garland and did not breach any principles of procedural fairness. The application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed, and no orders were made in favour of the applicant.

Luke Garland v Moores Auto Electrical and Mechanical

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established