Mark Workman v Ramsay Health Care Aust PL

Case [2023] FWC 203


[2023] FWC 203

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Mark Workman
v

Ramsay Health Care Aust PL

(U2022/12277)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 24 JANUARY 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

  1. On 24 December 2022 Mr Mark Workman made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the 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 Workman did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

  1. On 4 January 2023 the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Workman’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 is not made or a waiver form is not received within 14 days, the application may be dismissed.

  1. On 5 January 2023 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Workman on his nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee however, the call was not answered. A voicemail message was left requesting that Mr Workman contact the Commission to discuss the matter further and pay the fee.

  1. A final attempt to contact Mr Workman was made by the Commission on 17 January 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered, and a voicemail message was left advising Mr Workman that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.

  1. To date Mr Workman has not paid the required fee or completed a waiver form.

  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 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 prospect of success.

  1. 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.


COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR749925>

Details
AGLC
Mark Workman v Ramsay Health Care Aust PL [2023] FWC 203
Case
[2023] FWC 203
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Mark Workman sought a remedy for unfair dismissal against Ramsay Health Care Aust PL. The applicant, Mr Workman, lodged an application for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. However, the application was incomplete as it lacked the necessary filing fee or a completed waiver form. The Commission communicated with Mr Workman to address this deficiency, providing multiple opportunities to rectify the issue, but he failed to respond or comply with the requirements.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether the application met the procedural requirements under the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court had to determine if the application could proceed despite the absence of the required fee or waiver form. Section 395 of the FW Act mandates that an application to the FWC must be accompanied by a prescribed fee, and section 587(1)(a) allows for the dismissal of an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act.

The Commission found that the application did not comply with the Act due to the missing fee. Consequently, the application was dismissed under section 587(1)(a) of the FW Act. The Commission determined that the procedural non-compliance was a valid ground for dismissing the application. The applicant's failure to address the fee requirement despite multiple notifications rendered the application non-compliant.

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.