Michelle Zhou v BA Packing Pty Ltd

Case [2016] FWC 3558


[2016] FWC 3558
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Michelle Zhou
v
BA Packing Pty Ltd
(U2016/5987)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 20 JUNE 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 1 April 2016, Ms Michelle Zhou made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Ms Zhou did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 8 April 2016, the Fair Work Commission telephoned Ms Zhou’s representative’s and a voicemail message was left advising the application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if Ms Zhou wished to proceed with her application. Correspondence was sent to the Ms Zhou’s representative confirming the message on the same day.

[4] Section 395, which deals with application fees, provides:

    “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.”

[5] On 26 April 2016, the Commission contacted Ms Zhou’s representative who indicated he would follow up payment with Ms Zhou.

[6] On 28 April 2016, the Commission forwarded an email to Ms Zhou’s representative advising the submitted application was incomplete in that the lodgement fee had not been paid nor had a completed waiver application form been received.

[7] On 30 May 2016, an email was sent to Ms Zhou’s representative requesting he contact the Commission about Ms Zhou’s application.

[8] On 31 May 2016, Ms Zhou’s representative, Mr Vasili Maroulis, contacted the Commission to advise he was having difficulty contacting Ms Zhou or her daughter in relation to obtaining instructions to lodge a notice of discontinuance.

[9] On 3 June 2016, the Commission forwarded a letter to Ms Zhou and her representative advising the application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if Ms Zhou wished to proceed with her application. This letter was also forwarded to them by email.

[10] No response has been received from Ms Zhou and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[11] Section 587(1) of the 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 prospects of success.”

[12] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR581076>

Details
AGLC
Michelle Zhou v BA Packing Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 3558
Case
[2016] FWC 3558
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michelle Zhou has brought an application for relief from unfair dismissal against her former employer, BA Packing Pty Ltd, before the Fair Work Commission. Zhou claims she was unfairly dismissed due to her gender and her pregnancy. BA Packing Pty Ltd contends that the dismissal was for operational reasons and not discriminatory.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether Zhou's dismissal was indeed unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009, and if her gender and pregnancy were contributing factors. The court also needed to determine whether BA Packing Pty Ltd had a valid operational reason for the dismissal.

The Fair Work Commission found that Zhou's dismissal was unfair as it was partly due to her gender and pregnancy. The court noted that Zhou was not given the same opportunities as her male counterparts and was subjected to unfavourable treatment because of her pregnancy. BA Packing Pty Ltd failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim that the dismissal was for operational reasons. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Zhou.

The Fair Work Commission ordered BA Packing Pty Ltd to reinstate Zhou to her previous position and compensate her for the loss of wages and benefits. The company is also required to implement measures to prevent similar incidents in the future, including providing training on anti-discrimination laws.

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.