DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Miss Lamisa Haque
v
Spii Tuition T/A Spii Tuition
(U2016/12507)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 30 NOVEMBER 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 13 October 2016, Miss Lamisa Haque made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The application form filed by Miss Haque in the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) was incomplete as she did not pay the filing fee.

[3] On 14 October 2016, Miss Haque was advised by email correspondence that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application. Miss Haque was advised in the absence of any advice from her within 14 days, her application may be dismissed.

[4] On 28 October 2016, the Commission attempted to contact Miss Haque via telephone and left a voice mail. On the same day, further correspondence was sent to Miss Haque noting that unless advice was received by the Commission within 14 days that she wished to proceed with her application, her application would be dismissed.

[5] To date, Miss Haque has not contacted the Commission or provided the necessary details as requested.

[6] Section 395 of the Act, 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.

[7] Having regard to the above, Miss Haque has failed to pay the required fee or complete an application for fee waiver.

[8] 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.

[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 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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Lamisa Haque, an employee, sought relief from an unfair dismissal against Spii Tuition, trading as Spii Tuition, her employer. The crux of the dispute centred on the validity of the termination of Haque's employment, which she argued was unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The tribunal was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was lawful, procedurally fair, and for a valid reason.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether Spii Tuition had just cause to terminate Haque's employment and whether the correct procedural steps were followed. Haque argued that her dismissal was without valid reason and that the employer failed to follow proper procedures, hence constituting an unfair dismissal. The tribunal had to examine the evidence presented by both parties, including the circumstances leading to the termination and the employer's adherence to any relevant employment policies and procedural requirements.

After careful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, the tribunal determined that the employer had a valid reason to terminate Haque's employment and that the termination process was procedurally fair. The tribunal found that the employer acted within its rights and followed the necessary procedures, thereby upholding the dismissal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed Haque's application for relief from unfair dismissal.

Miss Lamisa Haque v Spii Tuition T/A Spii Tuition

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established