Mitchell West v Woolworths Group Limited T/A Woolworths Supermarket

Case [2022] FWC 697


[2022] FWC 697

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mitchell West
v

Woolworths Group Limited T/A Woolworths Supermarket

(U2022/2883)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 29 MARCH 2022

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

  1. On 8 March 2022 Mr Mitchell West 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). Mr West alleged he was unfairly dismissed by Woolworths Group Limited T/A Woolworths Supermarket on 15 February 2022.

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

  1. On 8 March 2022 the Commission contacted Mr West on his nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee. Mr West advised said that he intended to file a fee waiver application. Mr West was provided instructions on how to do so.

  1. Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr West’s nominated email address advising that their application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if they wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment was not made or a waiver form was not received within 14 days, the application may be dismissed.

  1. A final attempt to contact Mr West was made by the Commission on 21 March 2022 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered and a voicemail message was left advising Mr West that payment of the required fee was still outstanding and that a fee waiver application had not been received. Mr West was requested to urgently contact the Commission.

  1. To date there has been no response from Mr West, 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 with this decision.

COMMISSIONER


[1] PR739809.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR739808>

Details
AGLC
Mitchell West v Woolworths Group Limited T/A Woolworths Supermarket [2022] FWC 697
Case
[2022] FWC 697
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mitchell West lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal against Woolworths Group Limited, trading as Woolworths Supermarket. The application was lodged under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) on 8 March 2022. Mr West alleged that he was dismissed by Woolworths on 15 February 2022. The application was incomplete as it did not include the requisite application fee nor a completed fee waiver form. Despite multiple attempts by the FWC to contact Mr West and advise him of the need to pay the fee or file a fee waiver form, he did not respond or take any action to complete the application.

The primary legal issue the FWC had to determine was whether Mr West's application could be dismissed on the basis that it was not made in accordance with the FW Act due to the absence of the required fee or a fee waiver form. This issue hinged on the interpretation and application of sections 395 and 587(1)(a) of the FW Act. The FWC considered whether the failure to pay the prescribed application fee or file a fee waiver form rendered the application non-compliant with the Act, thereby warranting dismissal under section 587(1)(a).

The FWC concluded that Mr West's application did not comply with the FW Act as it was not accompanied by the prescribed application fee or a completed fee waiver form. Consequently, the FWC found that the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the FWC exercised its discretion to dismiss the application pursuant to section 587(1)(a) of the FW Act. The FWC issued an order dismissing the application and made clear that it would not proceed any further with the matter unless and until the requisite fee was paid or a fee waiver was granted.

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.