DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Murrie Beevors
v
22 Grams Espresso
(U2020/2431)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 15 APRIL 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

[1] On 2 March 2020, Mr Murrie Beevors made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] The application made by Mr Beevors was incomplete in that it did not include payment of the required fee or a completed fee waiver form in accordance with s.395 of the FW Act.

[3] On 3 March 2020 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Beevors on his nominated telephone number to discuss payment. Mr Beevors did not answer the call and there was no capacity to leave a voicemail message.

[4] Later that day the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Beevors’ nominated email address advising that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application. The correspondence also warned that if Mr Beevors did not pay the application fee or make an application to have the fee waived within 14 days his application may be dismissed. Mr Beevors did not respond.

[5] On 17 March 2020 the Commission telephoned Mr Beevors to discuss payment. Mr Beevors answered the call and advised he was not immediately able to pay the filing fee as he was driving and did not have his credit card on him. Mr Beevors advised he would contact the Commission later that day or the following morning to make payment.

[6] As payment had not been made, on 27 March 2020 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Beevors on his nominated telephone number. Mr Beevors did not answer the call and a voicemail message was left requesting he urgently contact the Commission. Mr Beevors did not return the Commission’s call.

[7] To date payment of the required fee has not been made and no fee waiver form has been received.

[8] Section 395 of the FW Act, which deals with application fees, provides that:

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

[9] Section 587(1) of the FW Act provides that:

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

[10] 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 PR718265.

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the case of Murrie Beevors v 22 Grams Espresso was heard, involving an application for an unfair dismissal remedy. The applicant, Murrie Beevors, sought relief following her dismissal from employment by 22 Grams Espresso, the respondent. The crux of the dispute lay in the fairness of the dismissal, specifically under section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009, initiated by the Fair Work Commission. The applicant contended that her dismissal was unjust and sought reinstatement or compensation.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the dismissal was procedurally fair and whether it was justified on substantive grounds. The court examined whether 22 Grams Espresso followed the requisite procedural steps in terminating Ms Beevors' employment and whether the decision to dismiss was reasonable in the circumstances. The applicant argued that she was not given adequate notice or opportunity to respond to the allegations against her, thereby making the dismissal procedurally unfair. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the dismissal was warranted given the reasons provided by the employer.

The court, after reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. It was noted that the employer did not provide the applicant with sufficient notice or an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. Furthermore, the court held that the dismissal was not justified on substantive grounds as the employer did not demonstrate that the dismissal was reasonable in all circumstances. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the applicant, finding the dismissal to be unfair and granting the relief sought. The court ordered that the applicant be reinstated to her position or, alternatively, be compensated for the loss of employment.

Murrie Beevors v 22 Grams Espresso

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established