DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Melissa Winter
v
Voigt’s Flowers
(U2020/1654)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 16 MARCH 2020

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

[1] On 17 February 2020, Ms Melissa Winter made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

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

[3] On 17 February 2020 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Winter on her nominated mobile telephone number to discuss payment however Ms Winter did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left advising that payment of the application fee was still outstanding and requesting a call back. The Commission also attempted to telephone Ms Winter’s representative, Mr Bart Bulmer, however there was no answer and a short voice to text message was left requesting a return call.

[4] On the same day the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Winter’s nominated email address advising her that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed fee waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application. The correspondence also warned that if Ms Winter did not pay the application fee or make an application to have the fee waived within 14 days her application may be dismissed. The correspondence was also sent to Ms Winter’s representative. Ms Winter and her representative did not respond to the correspondence.

[5] On 4 March 2020 the Commission made a final attempt to contact Ms Winter to obtain payment details. Ms Winter did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting a call back. The Commission also contacted Ms Winter’s representative who advised Ms Winter has sought legal advice and is deciding whether to proceed with her application. The Commission advised Ms Winter’s representative that if the required fee is not paid or a completed waiver form received the application may be dismissed.

[6] To date Ms Winter has paid the required fee or filed a completed waiver form.

[7] Section 395 of the FW Act, which deals with application fees, states that:

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

[8] Section 587(1) of the FW 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

[9] 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 PR717511.

Melissa Winter filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal against Voigt's Flowers, with the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred around the fairness of her dismissal from employment, and whether it was conducted in accordance with the relevant legislation. The Commission was required to determine whether the dismissal was justified, and whether Ms Winter's application was sufficiently complete to warrant consideration. Notably, the Commission had the authority to initiate the dismissal process under section 587 if the application was deemed incomplete.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Ms Winter's application was sufficiently complete to warrant consideration, or if it was so deficient that it warranted dismissal at the Commission’s initiative. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess whether the dismissal itself was fair and justifiable under the applicable laws. The Commission considered the procedural fairness of the dismissal, including whether Ms Winter had been provided with an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her.

In assessing the application, the Commission found that Ms Winter's application was incomplete and did not meet the necessary standards for consideration. Consequently, the Commission exercised its discretion to dismiss the application under section 587. The Commission further found that the dismissal was fair and justified, taking into account the circumstances of the case. As a result, the Commission dismissed Ms Winter's application for relief from unfair dismissal and upheld the decision of Voigt's Flowers to terminate her employment.

The Commission made no orders in relation to the costs of the application.

Melissa Winter v Voigt's Flowers

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established