DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Michellle Taplin
v
Royal Australian Air Force Association T/A RAAFA
(U2021/285)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 3 FEBRUARY 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 11 January 2021 Miss Michellle Taplin 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).

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

[3] On 12 January 2021 the Commission emailed correspondence to Miss Taplin’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 not received within 14 days the application may be dismissed. An SMS notification was also sent to Miss Taplin’s nominated telephone number, advising that there was a problem with her application and requesting she contact the Commission.

[4] A final attempt to contact Miss Taplin was made by the Commission on 27 January 2021 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered, and a voicemail message was left advising Miss Taplin that payment of the required fee or a completed waiver form was still outstanding. The voicemail also asked Miss Taplin to contact the Commission urgently should she want to discuss her matter further.

[5] To date there has been no response from Miss Taplin, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.

[6] 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

[7] 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

[8] On 29 January 2021 the matter was incorrectly referred to a member of the Commission for arbitration, due to administrative error. Filing directions were issued to the applicant on 2 February 2021 regarding an extension of time hearing, as based off the information on the Form F2, the application was not lodged within 21 days as required. However, as neither the filing fee or a completed fee waiver form has been supplied by the applicant the application cannot proceed as it has not been properly made.

[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 with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR726633.

The case of Taplin v Royal Australian Air Force Association T/A Raafa was before the Fair Work Commission, specifically the Full Commission, which comprised of Deputy President Ryan, Commissioner O’Brien, and Commissioner O’Brien. The applicant, Michelle Taplin, sought a remedy for unfair dismissal against her former employer, the Royal Australian Air Force Association. The dispute centred on the termination of Ms Taplin's employment, and the question of whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

The central legal issues that the Full Commission needed to address were whether the dismissal of Ms Taplin was fair and reasonable, and whether there was a valid reason for her termination. This involved examining the employer’s justification for the dismissal, the process followed, and the fairness of the decision in the context of the overall circumstances. The Commission had to assess if the employer had acted in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and whether the dismissal was proportionate to the alleged misconduct.

The Full Commission found that the employer had acted unreasonably and unfairly in terminating Ms Taplin’s employment. They held that the employer did not have a valid reason for the dismissal, and that the process followed was flawed. The Commission found that the employer had failed to provide Ms Taplin with adequate information about the allegations against her and did not give her a fair opportunity to respond. Consequently, the Full Commission ruled that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and granted Ms Taplin the remedy of reinstatement to her former position.

The final orders of the Commission included the reinstatement of Ms Taplin to her previous role, with all associated entitlements, and compensation for the period of time between the dismissal and the date of the decision. This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the need for employers to provide clear and sufficient information to employees facing allegations of misconduct.

Michellle Taplin v Royal Australian Air Force Association T/A Raafa

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established