Michelle Blevins v Ngaanyatjarra Council

Case [2022] FWC 2665


[2022] FWC 2665

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Michelle Blevins
v

Ngaanyatjarra Council

(U2022/9341)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 4 OCTOBER 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – unpaid application – dismissal under s.587(1)(a) at the Commission’s initiative.

  1. On 19 September 2022 Mrs Michelle Blevins 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).

  1. The application was incomplete in that Mrs Blevins did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

  1. On 20 September 2022 the Commission emailed correspondence to Mrs Blevins’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 7 calendar days, the application may be dismissed.

  1. On 23 September 2022 the Commission emailed correspondence to Mrs Blevins’s nominated email address reminding her 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, the application may be dismissed. 

  1. A final attempt to contact Mrs Blevins on her nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 26 September 2022 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered, and a voicemail message was left advising Mrs Blevins that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.

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

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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


[1] PR746469

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR746468>

Details
AGLC
Michelle Blevins v Ngaanyatjarra Council [2022] FWC 2665
Case
[2022] FWC 2665
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michelle Blevins filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Fair Work Commission against the Ngaanyatjarra Council. The application was incomplete as Blevins failed to pay the required filing fee or submit a completed waiver form. Despite multiple reminders from the Fair Work Commission, Blevins did not respond, leading to the application being dismissed under section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act for non-compliance. The Fair Work Commission had to determine whether the application could be dismissed for not being made in accordance with the Act.

The court considered the provisions of section 395 of the Fair Work Act, which mandates that applications to the Fair Work Commission must be accompanied by the prescribed fee. It also evaluated section 587(1)(a), which allows for the dismissal of applications not made in accordance with the Act. Given that Blevins did not pay the required fee or submit a completed waiver form, the application was deemed not to be in compliance with the Act. The court concluded that the application had no reasonable prospect of success and was, therefore, dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission concluded that the application was dismissed because it was not made in accordance with the Fair Work Act. The court found that Blevins' failure to pay the required fee or submit a completed waiver form resulted in the application not being compliant with the Act. Consequently, the application was dismissed under section 587(1)(a). An order reflecting this decision will be issued.

[1] PR746469

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.