Luke Wojcik v Link Business Services Pty Ltd

Case [2022] FWC 2786


[2022] FWC 2786

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Luke Wojcik
v

Link Business Services Pty Ltd

(U2022/9317)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 18 OCTOBER 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – unpaid application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative

  1. On 16 September 2022 Mr Luke Wojcik 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).

  1. The application was incomplete in that Mr Wojcik did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

  1. On 20 September 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Wojcik on his nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee however, he did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting he contact the Commission.

  1. Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Wojcik’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. An SMS notification was also sent to Wojcik’s nominated telephone number, requesting he contact the Commission.

  1. A final attempt to contact Mr Wojcik was made by the Commission on 11 October 2022 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered, and a voicemail message was left advising that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.

  1. To date there has been no response from Mr Wojcik, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.

  1. 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

(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.

  1. 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
(c) the application has no reasonable prospect of success.

  1. 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


[1] PR746932

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR746931>

Details
AGLC
Luke Wojcik v Link Business Services Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 2786
Case
[2022] FWC 2786
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Luke Wojcik versus Link Business Services Pty Ltd, the applicant sought a remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The respondent, Link Business Services Pty Ltd, was not satisfied with the application as it was incomplete, lacking both the required fee and a completed waiver form. The case was heard by Commissioner Bissett in Melbourne on 18 October 2022.

The legal issues at the centre of this case revolved around the procedural requirements for an application to the Fair Work Commission and the consequences of not meeting these requirements. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the incomplete application could be remedied or if it should be dismissed under section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

In reaching its decision, the court considered section 395 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which mandates that an application to the Fair Work Commission must be accompanied by any prescribed fee. The court also looked at section 587(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009, which allows the Fair Work Commission to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act. Given that the application was not accompanied by the prescribed fee, the court found that it was not made in accordance with the Act and thus dismissed the application under section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court issued an order to this effect.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the application for unfair dismissal by Luke Wojcik against Link Business Services Pty Ltd, pursuant to section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009, due to the incomplete nature of the application, which did not include the required fee or a completed waiver form.

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.