DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Matthew Bugdalski
v
Airmaster
(U2020/15742)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 13 JANUARY 2021

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – incomplete application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

[1] On 9 December 2020, Mr Matthew Bugdalski made an application to the Fair Work Commission (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 Bugdalski did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

[3] On 9 December 2020, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Bugdalski on his nominated telephone number to advise that the waiver he lodged with his application was blank. The Commission advised Mr Bugdalski that he would need to re-send a completed Form F80 if he wished to request the application fee be waived and that a letter will be sent with a blank Form F80 for him to fill in and return to the Commission.

[4] Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Bugdalski’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.

[5] Another telephone call was made to Mr Bugdalski on 16 December 2020 to advise that the waiver had still not been received. Mr Bugdalski said that he had not received any correspondence from the Commission by email. Mr Bugdalski was advised that email correspondence was sent on 9 December 2020 and his email address was confirmed as being correct. It was suggested that Mr Bugdalski check his junk mail and that alternatively, he could download the Form F80 form from the Commission’s website.

[6] Further, in that telephone call Mr Bugdalski was advised that if the waiver or payment is not received by 23 December 2020 his matter may be dismissed. A final attempt to contact Mr Bugdalski was made by the Commission on 6 January 2021 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered and a voicemail message was left advising Mr Bugdalski that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.

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

[8] 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

[9] Section 587(1) of the FW 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

[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 1 to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR726101

The case of Matthew Bugdalski v Airmaster involved the applicant, Matthew Bugdalski, who sought relief from unfair dismissal against his former employer, Airmaster. Bugdalski's application was considered by the Fair Work Commission, which is Australia's workplace relations tribunal. The applicant had initially lodged his application for unfair dismissal but failed to complete the required sections. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the application under section 587 of the Fair Work Act, initiating the process at its own discretion.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the incomplete application was sufficient for the Commission to proceed with the merits of the case. Specifically, it had to determine whether Bugdalski's incomplete application warranted dismissal under section 587 of the Act. This required the Commission to balance Bugdalski's procedural compliance against the principles of fairness and the need to ensure that the Commission's resources were not wasted on incomplete applications.

In reaching its decision, the Commission considered the statutory framework and the procedural requirements for lodging an application for unfair dismissal. It held that the incomplete nature of Bugdalski's application meant it did not meet the necessary standards for consideration on the merits. The Commission emphasized that while it is committed to fairness, it must also adhere to procedural requirements to ensure the efficient administration of justice. Consequently, the application was dismissed under section 587 of the Fair Work Act. The Commission's decision was based on the fact that Bugdalski had not provided the essential information required to proceed with the merits of his unfair dismissal claim.

As a result of the Commission's decision, Bugdalski's application for unfair dismissal was dismissed. The Commission did not proceed to the merits of the case, as the incomplete application did not meet the necessary standards for consideration. The applicant was not granted relief from his dismissal.

Matthew Bugdalski v Airmaster

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established