DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections

Matt Alizadeh
v
Spa Electrics Pty Ltd
(C2021/2651)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN

MELBOURNE, 6 AUGUST 2021

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application dismissed.

[1] Mr Matt Alizadeh (applicant) has made an application under s 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) alleging that he was dismissed by Spa Electrics Pty Ltd (respondent) wholly or partly for a proscribed reason in contravention of the general protections provisions in Part 3-1 of the Act. The application was not made in accordance with the procedural rules, and the lodgement fee remains unpaid. The applicant has not responded to correspondence from the Commission alerting him to these deficiencies, nor has he rectified those deficiencies. I have decided to dismiss the application under s 587 of the Act for the following reasons.

[2] The application was lodged on 10 May 2021. On 11 May 2021, the Commission sent to the applicant a letter stating that the application was incomplete because it had not been signed, and the application had not been accompanied by the lodgement fee. The letter advised that if the deficiencies in the application were not remedied, the application may be dismissed. On 27 May 2021, the Commission sent to the applicant a further letter stating that the lodgement fee remained unpaid. On 15 June 2021, the Commission wrote to the applicant a third time, reiterating that the lodgement fee had not been paid, and providing the applicant until close of business on 18 June 2021 to file a complete application and to pay the lodgement fee or file a waiver application form.

[3] The applicant has not amended his application. He has not paid the lodgement fee or sought a waiver. He has not made any submissions as to why his application should not be dismissed.

[4] 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

…

(2) Despite paragraphs (1) (b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 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.”

[5] There are two respects in which the application is not made in accordance with the Act. First, s 585 of the Act states that an application to the Commission ‘must be in accordance with the procedural rules (if any) relating to applications of that kind’. The Fair Work Commission Rules require that a document lodged by a party be signed and dated (rule 17). The application in the present matter was not signed and dated. It did not comply with the procedural rules and was therefore not made in accordance with s 585 of the Act.

[6] Secondly, s 367 states that an application under s 365 ‘must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations’. At the time the application was made, the regulations prescribed a fee of $74.50. The regulations also allow for an application to be made for the fee to be waived. The applicant has neither paid the fee nor sought a fee waiver. The application is not made in accordance with s 367 of the Act.

[7] Both of these deficiencies engage s 587(1)(a). The Commission has a discretion to dismiss the application. I have decided to exercise this discretion because it is fair and reasonable to do so. The applicant was notified that the application was incomplete and that it had not been accompanied by the required fee. The applicant has taken no action to address the deficiencies. I dismiss the application in accordance with s 587(1)(a) of the Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Matt Alizadeh filed an application against Spa Electrics Pty Ltd. Mr. Alizadeh sought remedies and declarations concerning alleged unfair dismissal, arguing that he was terminated without just cause or excuse. The court was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was indeed unfair and, if so, what the appropriate remedy should be.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether Mr. Alizadeh's dismissal was justified under the Fair Work Act 2009. This involved assessing the employer's reasons for the dismissal and whether those reasons complied with the requirements for a valid termination. The court also needed to consider if the dismissal was procedurally fair, ensuring that Mr. Alizadeh had an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court found that the employer had legitimate reasons for the dismissal and that the process followed was procedurally fair. Consequently, the court concluded that Mr. Alizadeh's dismissal was not unfair. The application for remedies and declarations was dismissed, and no orders were made in favour of the applicant.

Matt Alizadeh v Spa Electrics Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established