Navneet Grewal v Legoland Discovery Centre Melbourne Pty Ltd

[2024] FWC 3374

[2024] FWC 3374

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Navneet Grewal
v

LEGOLAND Discovery Centre Melbourne Pty Ltd

(U2024/12721)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY MELBOURNE, 4 DECEMBER 2024

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

1. Ms Navneet Grewal lodged an unfair dismissal application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy on 24 October 2024. Ms Grewal lodged a Form F80 – Application for waiver of the application fee (Form F80) on the same day.

1. The application was incomplete in that Ms Grewal did not pay the required application fee after she was informed that her Form F80 was not approved.

1. On 29 October 2024, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Grewal’s nominated email address informing her that the Commission may only waive the application fee if it is satisfied that the application will suffer serious hardship if required to pay the required fee under the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth). The correspondence informed Ms Grewal that her request for a fee waiver had not been approved based on the information provided in her Form F80. The correspondence stated that payment of the application fee would be required to progress her unfair dismissal application. That correspondence warned Ms Grewal that if payment was not made within 7 calendar days, her unfair dismissal application may be dismissed.

1. Later that same day, the Commission sent an SMS request to Ms Grewal’s nominated telephone number requesting her to urgently contact the Commission in relation to her unfair dismissal application.

1. On 31 October 2024, the Commission attempted to contact Ms Grewal on her nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee. However, the call was not answered, and a voicemail message was left requesting Ms Grewal to call back and make the required payment.

1. On 6 November 2024, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Grewal’s nominated email address reminding her that her application required payment of the application fee. That correspondence also warned that if payment was not made, her application may be dismissed.

1. A final attempt to contact Ms Grewal was made by the Commission by telephone on 28 November 2024 to follow up on the outstanding application fee. Ms Grewal could not be reached, and a voicemail message was left requesting Ms Grewal to urgently contact the Commission.

1. To date, there has been no response from Ms Grewal and the required fee has not been paid.

1. Section 395 of the 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.” (bold text in the original)

1. In relation to an application made pursuant to s.394 of the Act, s.395(1) relevantly provides that the application “must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.” Regulation 3.07 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) sets out the amount of the fee for making an unfair dismissal application.

1. Section 587 of the Act relevantly 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.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3‑2, see section 399A.

…

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.” (bold text in the original)

1. The material before the Commission indicates that the relevant application form was not accompanied by the prescribed fee and that the Form F80 lodged by Ms Grewal on 24 October 2024 was not approved. I am satisfied that the application has not been made in accordance with the Act. Given the absence of the fee payment, it is likely that there is no valid application before the Commission and no further action is required. A non-compliant application is directly contemplated by s.587(1)(a) of the Act. Despite the attempts by the Commission to contact Ms Grewal, there has been no response. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate in all the circumstances to dismiss the purported application. An order[1] to this effect will be issued with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] PR782015.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR782014>