DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Marisa Gleeson
v
Web Marketing Experts Pty Ltd T/A Web Marketing Experts
(U2016/9926)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 28 OCTOBER 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 1 August 2016, Ms Marisa Gleeson made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Ms Gleeson did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 2 August 2016, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) attempted to contact Ms Gleeson by telephone in relation to the required payment of the filing for or a completed waiver form. A voice message was left.

[4] On 2 August 2016, Ms Gleeson was advised by email correspondence that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application. She was advised in the absence of advice from her within 14 days, her application may be dismissed.

[5] Section 395, which deals with application fees, provides:

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.

[6] On 23 August 2016, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Gleeson in relation to the correspondence dated 2 August 2016. A voice message was left. No response was received from Ms Gleeson and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[7] On 1 September 2016, the Commission again attempted to contact Ms Gleeson in relation to the correspondence dated on 2 August 2016. A voice message was left and correspondence was sent. No response was received from Ms Gleeson and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[8] On 22 September 2016, the Commission made a final attempt to contact Ms Gleeson in relation to the correspondence dated on 2 August 2016. A voice message was left and correspondence was sent. No response was received from Ms Gleeson and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[9] Section 587(1) of the 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 prospects of success.

[10] 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 section 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

Marisa Gleeson applied for relief from an unfair dismissal against Web Marketing Experts Pty Ltd T/A Web Marketing Experts. The applicant, a former employee of the respondent, sought to overturn the dismissal on the basis that it was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The central legal issues were whether the dismissal was justified under the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 and if the respondent had acted in accordance with procedural fairness. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the dismissal, including the reasons provided by the employer, the applicant's performance and conduct, and whether the employer followed proper procedures.

The Fair Work Commission found that the dismissal was justified based on the evidence presented. The respondent had provided clear and documented reasons for the termination, which were related to the applicant's performance and conduct. The Commission concluded that the respondent had followed proper procedures and that the dismissal was not unfair. The application for relief was therefore dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the application for relief from unfair dismissal be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.

Marisa Gleeson v Web Marketing Experts Pty Ltd T/A Web Marketing Experts

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established