| [2023] FWC 3137 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections
Paul Baltas
v
The Trustee For Zhang-Hoyle Family T/A Eastern Cleaning Supplies
(C2023/6544)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 28 NOVEMBER 2023 |
Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal - application dismissed.
On 26 October 2023, Mr Paul Baltas (Applicant) attempted to make an application under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) via telephone. Over the telephone, Mr Baltas provided the contact information for himself and for The Trustee For Zhang-Hoyle Family T/A Eastern Cleaning Supplies (the Respondent). Mr Baltas did not provide any information on the remedy he was seeking, or contraventions he was alleging under the Act. Later that day, the Commission sent email correspondence to Mr Baltas’ nominated email address, requesting that he provide a completed Form F8 – General protections application involving dismissal (Form F8). The email correspondence received an undeliverable bounce back email, indicating that the correspondence was not received by him.
On 30 October 2023, the Commission contacted Mr Baltas on his nominated telephone number, to confirm his correct email address. Email correspondence was then sent to Mr Baltas requesting he provide a completed Form F8. The correspondence attached a Form F8 which was already populated with information Mr Baltas had previously provided over the telephone. It was requested that Mr Baltas complete the remainder of the Form F8, pay the application fee or complete a Form F80 – Waiver of Application fee (Form F80), and sign and return the forms within 14 days, otherwise his matter may be dismissed without further notice.
On 15 November 2023, the Commission again contacted Mr Baltas on his nominated telephone number. Mr Baltas confirmed that he would submit a complete application by close of business on the 16 November 2023. Mr Baltas was advised that if his complete Form F8 was not received by this date, his matter may be dismissed without further notice. To date Mr Baltas has not provided a completed Form F8, made payment of the application or sought a Waiver. Nor has Mr Baltas made any further contact with the Commission since 15 November 2023.
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 $83.30. 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
In considering all the circumstances, I am satisfied that as the application form in question was incomplete and not accompanied by the prescribed fee or a Form F80, it has not been made in accordance with the Act. Given the absence of a completed Form F8 and 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 him, the reminders and multiple requests, Mr Baltas has not responded. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate in all the circumstances to dismiss the purported application. The application is dismissed. An Order[1] to this effect will be issued with this decision.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] PR768823.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR768763>
- AGLC
- Paul Baltas v The Trustee for Zhang-Hoyle Family T/A Eastern Cleaning Supplies [2023] FWC 3137
- Case
- [2023] FWC 3137
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key issue before the Commission was whether the application made by Mr Baltas complied with the requirements set forth in the Fair Work Act 2009 and its regulations. Specifically, the Commission had to consider whether the application was complete, accompanied by the required fee, and submitted in the appropriate manner. The Commission also had to determine if Mr Baltas' failure to respond to requests for further information justified the dismissal of his application.
The Deputy President, Clancy, found that Mr Baltas' application did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 as it was incomplete and not accompanied by the prescribed application fee or a waiver request. Despite multiple attempts by the Commission to contact Mr Baltas and requests for him to complete the necessary forms and pay the fee, he did not respond. Given these circumstances, the Deputy President concluded that the application should be dismissed as it did not meet the statutory requirements and had no reasonable prospects of success.
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application made by Mr Baltas. An order to this effect will be issued, and no further action will be taken regarding this matter.
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.