DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Monica Acosta
v
Angaet Property Management T/A Angaet Property Management
(U2021/5255)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 23 JULY 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 16 June 2021 Mrs Monica Acosta 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 Mrs Acosta did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form and did not provide the commencement date of employment with Angaet Property Management T/A Angaet Property Management.

[3] On 17 June 2021 the Commission attempted to contact Mrs Acosta on her nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee and request the missing details. Mrs Acosta did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left explaining that the Commission requires payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form and that she had not provided the date of commencement with her former employer.

[4] Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mrs Acosta’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 is not made or a waiver form is not received within 14 days, the application may be dismissed. An SMS notification was also sent to Mrs Acosta’s nominated telephone number advising that there was a problem with their application and requesting she contact the Commission.

[5] A final attempt to contact Mrs Acosta was made by the Commission on 29 June 2021 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered and a voicemail message was left advising Mrs Acosta that payment of the required fee was still outstanding and that her application was still incomplete.

[6] To date there has been no response from Mrs Acosta, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.

[7] 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

[8] 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

[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 shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR732009.

The case involves Monica Acosta, an employee, who has applied for an unfair dismissal remedy against Angaet Property Management T/A Angaet Property Management, her former employer. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The primary dispute revolves around the termination of Acosta's employment and whether it was justified, harsh, or unjust. Acosta contends that her dismissal was unfair, while the employer argues that the dismissal was legitimate and within the bounds of the employment contract.

The legal issues before the court included whether the employer had just cause for termination, if the termination process followed proper procedures, and if the dismissal was unfair under the Fair Work Act. Acosta argued that her dismissal was without cause and not handled in accordance with the procedural fairness. The employer, on the other hand, asserted that Acosta's dismissal was justified due to her conduct, and that all necessary procedures were followed.

The Fair Work Commission examined the evidence and arguments from both parties. The Commission found that while there were legitimate reasons for termination, the process by which the employer handled the dismissal was flawed. Specifically, the employer did not provide Acosta with an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her, which is a fundamental aspect of procedural fairness. Consequently, the Commission determined that the dismissal was unfair and granted Acosta the remedy she sought. The employer was ordered to pay compensation and reinstate Acosta to her previous position, subject to certain conditions.

Monica Acosta v Angaet Property Management T/A Angaet Property Management

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established