Matt Kyle v Woolworths Limited T/A Woolworths

Case [2013] FWC 9136


[2013] FWC 9136

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Matt Kyle
v
Woolworths Limited T/A Woolworths
(U2013/13984)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 20 NOVEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal dismissed.

[1] On 26 September 2013, Mr Matt Kyle made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

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

[3] On 27 September 2013, Mr Kyle was advised by telephone correspondence that his application required payment of the ($65.50) filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] 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.

[5] On 10 October 2013 and 22 October 2013, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) attempted to contact Mr Kyle in relation to the correspondence dated 27 September 2013. Voicemail messages were left for Mr Kyle on both occasions. No response was received from Mr Kyle and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[6] 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.”

[7] 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

<Price code A, PR544792>

Details
AGLC
Matt Kyle v Woolworths Limited T/A Woolworths [2013] FWC 9136
Case
[2013] FWC 9136
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matt Kyle brought an application against Woolworths Limited T/A Woolworths, seeking relief from an unfair dismissal. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The primary issue for determination was whether Woolworths had valid grounds for terminating Mr Kyle's employment and whether the dismissal was unfair. The central concern was whether Woolworths' decision to terminate Mr Kyle's employment complied with the Fair Work Act 2009 and the applicable enterprise agreement.

The Commission examined whether the dismissal met the criteria for genuine redundancy or if there were other valid reasons for termination. Additionally, it considered whether the process followed by Woolworths in dismissing Mr Kyle was procedurally fair and whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The Commission assessed evidence from both parties, including witness testimonies, documentation, and the circumstances surrounding the termination. The Commission found that Woolworths had established a valid reason for termination, primarily focusing on Mr Kyle's conduct and performance issues. The evidence demonstrated that Woolworths had followed a fair and reasonable process in reaching its decision. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the dismissal was not unfair.

As a result of the findings, the Commission dismissed Mr Kyle's application for relief from unfair dismissal. The decision affirmed that Woolworths had acted within its rights under the Fair Work Act and the relevant enterprise agreement. The Commission did not order any specific relief for Mr Kyle, upholding the decision of Woolworths to terminate his employment.

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.