Mr Charlie Coleman v Trendy Cut Meats

Case [2023] FWC 234


[2023] FWC 234

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Charlie Coleman
v

Trendy Cut Meats

(U2022/12016)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 25 JANUARY 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

  1. On 19 December 2022 Mr Charlie Coleman 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).

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

  1. On 22 December 2022 the Commission sent correspondence to Mr Coleman’s nominated email address advising that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received within 7 calendar days the application may be dismissed.

  1. On 29 December 2022 the Commission sent correspondence to Mr Coleman’s nominated email address reminding him that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received, the application may be dismissed. 

  1. A final attempt to contact Mr Coleman on his nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 4 January 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered. A voicemail message was left advising Mr Coleman that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.

  1. To date there has been no response from Mr Coleman, 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 as follows:

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. 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.


COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR750000>

Details
AGLC
Mr Charlie Coleman v Trendy Cut Meats [2023] FWC 234
Case
[2023] FWC 234
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Charlie Coleman filed an application for unfair dismissal remedy against Trendy Cut Meats in the Fair Work Commission. The application was dismissed due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the application was incomplete because Mr Coleman did not pay the required fee nor file a completed waiver form. The Commission made several attempts to contact Mr Coleman to rectify this issue, but there was no response.

The legal issues that the Commission had to address included whether Mr Coleman's application complied with the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act, and whether it could be dismissed for non-compliance. The Commission considered the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act, including sections 395 and 587. Section 395 sets out the fee requirements for making an application to the Fair Work Commission, while section 587 provides for the dismissal of applications that are not made in accordance with the Act, among other things.

The Commission found that the application was not made in accordance with the Fair Work Act because it was not accompanied by the required fee. The Commission also noted that Mr Coleman did not respond to attempts to contact him to rectify the issue. The Commission concluded that the application could be dismissed pursuant to section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act.

The Commission dismissed the application for unfair dismissal remedy on the grounds that it was not made in accordance with the Fair Work Act. The Commission noted that the application was incomplete because it did not include the required fee or a completed waiver form, and that Mr Coleman did not respond to attempts to contact him to rectify the issue.

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.