DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Matthew Alexander
v
RateSetter Australia RE LTD
(U2020/4352)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 7 MAY 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 7 April 2020, Mr Matthew Alexander 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).

[2] The application was incomplete in that Mr Alexander did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

[3] 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

[4] On 8 April 2020, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Alexander on his nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee, however, Mr Alexander did not answer the call and it was not possible to leave a message.

[5] Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Alexander 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. An SMS notification was also sent to Mr Alexander’s nominated telephone number, advising that there was a problem with his application and requesting him to contact the Commission.

[6] Mr Alexander called the Commission on 8 April 2020 to advise he intended to make payment of the filing fee when he receives his next payment. The Commission advised Mr Alexander he could complete a waiver form if paying the filing fee was going to cause him serious financial hardship.

[7] A final attempt to contact Mr Alexander was made by the Commission on 23 April 2020 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. Mr Alexander did not answer the call and it was not possible to leave a message.

[8] To date there has been no response from Mr Alexander, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.

[9] Section 587(1) of the FW Act provides:

587 Dismissing applications

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

[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 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 to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Matthew Alexander filed an application for unfair dismissal remedy against RateSetter Australia Re Ltd. The dispute arose after RateSetter terminated Alexander's employment. Alexander sought relief under the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging that the termination was unjust and without valid reason or procedure. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which was tasked with determining the legitimacy of the dismissal and whether the requirements for unfair dismissal were met.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the termination of Alexander's employment was indeed unfair. This involved examining the reasons provided by RateSetter for the dismissal, the procedural fairness of the process, and whether there were any mitigating factors that could justify the termination. The court had to determine if the employer complied with the statutory requirements for dismissal and whether the dismissal was within the scope of reasons permitted by law. The court also needed to consider whether Alexander's conduct warranted the termination and if any procedural errors were present.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that RateSetter had failed to provide adequate justification for the dismissal and did not follow proper procedures. The employer's reasons for termination were deemed insufficient, and procedural errors were identified. The Commission concluded that the dismissal was unfair as it did not meet the criteria for a valid termination under the Fair Work Act. As a result, the court ordered that Alexander be reinstated to his position and awarded him compensation for the unlawful termination.

Matthew Alexander v RateSetter Australia Re Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established