| [2023] FWC 771 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections
Ms Taleah Lanciana
v
DDPM Investments Pty Ltd
(C2023/1364)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 30 MARCH 2023 |
Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application dismissed.
On 10 March 2023, Ms Taleah Lanciana made an application under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). Ms Lanciana alleges that she was dismissed in contravention of the general protection provisions in Part 3-1 of the Act.
The application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) (regulations) or by a completed application for waiver of the lodgement fee (waiver application). Ms Lanciana has not responded to correspondence from the Commission alerting her to this deficiency, nor has the deficiency been rectified. I have decided to dismiss the application for the following reasons.
Context
On 15 March 2023, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Lanciana’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. The email further stated as follows:
“Please pay the application fee within 7 calendar days (or apply to have the fee waived) so we can progress your case.
If you don’t make payment within 7 days your application may be dismissed.”
An SMS notification was also sent to Ms Lanciana’s nominated telephone number on 16 March 2023. The SMS advised Ms Lanciana to take action in compliance with the email from the Commission regarding payment of the application fee.
On 21 March 2023, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Lanciana’s nominated email address reminding her that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with the application. The correspondence instructed Ms Lanciana how to pay the application fee or make a waiver application and further stated as follows:
“Reminder: You need to pay the application fee (or apply to have the fee waived) or your application may be dismissed.”.
A final attempt to contact Ms Lanciana on her nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 22 March 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered, and a voicemail message was left advising Ms Lanciana that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.
To date, Ms Lanciana has not paid the lodgement fee or filed a completed waiver application.
Legislative framework
In relation to an application made pursuant to s.365 of the Act, s.367(1) provides that the application “must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.” At the time the application was made, the regulations prescribed a fee of $77.80. The regulations also allow for an application to be made for the fee to be waived.
Section 587 of the 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 prospects of success.
…
(2) Despite paragraphs (1) (b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:
(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or
(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.
(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.
Consideration and conclusion
Ms Lanciana has neither paid the lodgement fee nor sought a fee waiver. Accordingly, the application is not made in accordance with s.367 of the Act.
Ms Lanciana has taken no action to address the deficiency despite being notified of it by the Commission on multiple occasions. In these circumstances, I have decided to exercise my discretion to dismiss the application in accordance with s.587(1)(a) of the Act.
The application is dismissed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR760745>
- AGLC
- Ms Taleah Lanciana v DDPM Investments Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 771
- Case
- [2023] FWC 771
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Ms Lanciana's dismissal was unfair and unlawful, as claimed, or if it was justified under the circumstances. The Commission needed to examine the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, including the reasons for the dismissal, the company's policies, and any procedural fairness afforded to Ms Lanciana. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the dismissal was for a valid reason, such as capability, misconduct, or operational requirements, and if the correct procedures were followed.
After carefully considering the evidence and arguments, the Commission determined that Ms Lanciana's dismissal was justified. The Commission found that the company had followed its policies and procedures and that the reasons for dismissal were valid. The evidence did not support the claim that the dismissal was unfair or unlawful. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the application. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to company policies and procedures when making dismissal decisions to avoid potential disputes and legal challenges.
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.