Maureen Saunders v Civeo Pty Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 1601

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Maureen Saunders
v

Civeo Pty Ltd

(U2022/5616)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 23 JUNE 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – unpaid application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

On 22 May 2022, Ms Maureen Saunders 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).

The application was incomplete in that Ms Saunders did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

On 23 May 2022, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Saunders on her nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee however, the Ms Saunders did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting she contact the Commission to pay the required filing fee or file a completed waiver.

Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Saunders’s nominated email address advising that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment was not made or a waiver form was not received within 14 days, the application may be dismissed.

A final attempt to contact Ms Saunders was made by the Commission on 8 June 2022 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered and a voicemail message was left advising that payment of the required fee was still outstanding. The Commission advised Ms Saunders if payment or completed waiver was not received, the application may be dismissed.

To date there has been no response from Ms Saunders, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.

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.

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
(c) the application has no reasonable prospect of success.

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 with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

[1] PR742967.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the matter of Maureen Saunders v Civeo Pty Ltd, the applicant, Ms Saunders, sought a remedy for unfair dismissal against her former employer, Civeo Pty Ltd, pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). The dispute arose following Ms Saunders' dismissal, and she sought to challenge this decision before the Fair Work Commission. The central issue for the court was whether Ms Saunders' application for unfair dismissal was valid, given that she did not pay the required application fee nor file a completed waiver form.

The primary legal question the court had to address was whether Ms Saunders' application complied with the FW Act. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the absence of the application fee or a completed waiver form rendered the application non-compliant and thus dismissible. According to section 395 of the FW Act, an application must be accompanied by the prescribed fee, and section 587(1)(a) allows the Commission to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act. Given that Ms Saunders did not pay the required fee or submit a waiver, the court found that her application was not compliant with the Act.

The Fair Work Commission, in its decision, held that Ms Saunders' application for unfair dismissal was dismissed pursuant to section 587(1)(a) of the FW Act because it was not made in accordance with the Act. The Commission noted that despite multiple attempts to contact Ms Saunders and provide her with opportunities to pay the fee or file a waiver, she did not respond. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the application had no reasonable prospect of success and was therefore dismissed. An order to this effect will be issued with the decision.

Maureen Saunders v Civeo Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established