Patricia Matthews v Multivac Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2021] FWC 6515

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Patricia Matthews
v
Multivac Australia Pty Ltd
(U2021/9689)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 6 DECEMBER 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

[1] On 28 October 2021 Ms Patricia Matthews 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). Ms Matthews alleged she was unfairly dismissed by Multivac Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent) on 6 July 2021.

[2] The application was incomplete in that Ms Matthews did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

[3] On 2 November 2021 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Matthews on her nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee however, Ms Matthews did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting she call the Commission to discuss payment of the filing fee.

[4] Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Matthews’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 was not made or a waiver form was not received within 14 days, the application may be dismissed.

[5] A final attempt to contact Ms Matthews was made by the Commission on 18 November 2021 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered, and a voicemail message was left advising Ms Matthews that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.

[6] To date there has been no response from Ms Matthews, 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 with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR736457.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Patricia Matthews, applied for an unfair dismissal remedy against the respondent, Multivac Australia Pty Ltd, in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Matthews sought to overturn her dismissal on the grounds of unfair dismissal, asserting that her termination was unjust and without valid reason. Matthews argued that the dismissal breached her employment contract and contravened the Australian Unfair Dismissal laws, which are outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. The central issue before the court was whether Matthews' dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

The court examined the validity of the dismissal and whether it complied with the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act. Matthews contended that she was dismissed without proper investigation or warning, and the respondent failed to provide a valid reason for the dismissal. The court assessed the fairness of the dismissal by considering the reasonableness of the employer's actions, the adequacy of the investigation, and the fairness of the dismissal process. Additionally, the court looked into whether the respondent had acted in accordance with the procedural fairness principles. The court concluded that the dismissal was unfair due to the lack of proper investigation and inadequate procedural fairness. Matthews' dismissal was deemed to breach the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, warranting the grant of an unfair dismissal remedy.

The court found in favour of Matthews, determining that her dismissal was indeed unfair. The court emphasised the importance of providing fair procedures when dismissing an employee and highlighted that the respondent failed to adhere to these principles. The court ordered that Matthews be reinstated to her position and awarded her compensation for the period of her dismissal. The court's decision underscored the significance of adhering to procedural fairness in employment terminations, ensuring that employees are treated justly and with respect.

Patricia Matthews v Multivac Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established