Paul Mare v SLE Services

Case [2023] FWC 1090


[2023] FWC 1090

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Paul Mare
v

SLE Services

(U2023/2777)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL

MELBOURNE, 9 MAY 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

  1. On 31 March 2023 Mr Paul Mare 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).

  1. The application was incomplete in that Mr Mare did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

  1. On 5 April 2023 the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Mare’s nominated email address advising that their application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if they wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received within 7 calendar days the application may be dismissed.

  1. On 6 April, an SMS notification was also sent to Mr Mare’s nominated telephone number advising of the requirement to action the payment request email from the Fair Work Commission.

  1. On 11 April 2023 the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Mare’s nominated email address reminding that their application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if they wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received, the application may be dismissed.

  1. A final attempt to contact Mr Mare on their nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 20 April 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered. A voicemail message was left advising Mr Mare that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.

  1. To date there has been no response from Mr Mare, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.

  1. 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

(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.

  1. Section 587(1) of the FW 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 prospect of success.

  1. 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.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR761725>

Details
AGLC
Paul Mare v SLE Services [2023] FWC 1090
Case
[2023] FWC 1090
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Paul Mare filed an application with the Fair Work Commission seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal against SLE Services. The application was incomplete as it did not include the necessary filing fee or a completed waiver form. The Commission made multiple attempts to contact Mr Mare via email and telephone, advising him of the requirement to pay the fee or submit a waiver form within specified timeframes. Despite these efforts, Mr Mare did not respond, and the required fee remained unpaid. The Fair Work Act mandates that applications must be accompanied by a prescribed fee, and failure to do so results in the application not being made in accordance with the Act. Consequently, the Deputy President dismissed the application under section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the application for an unfair dismissal remedy complied with the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court had to determine if the application was dismissed because it did not include the prescribed filing fee, as required by section 395 of the Act. Additionally, the court examined whether the application could be dismissed on the grounds that it was not made in accordance with the Act, as per section 587(1)(a).

The Deputy President found that the application was not made in accordance with the Fair Work Act because it lacked the necessary filing fee, which is a mandatory requirement under section 395. Despite multiple communications from the Commission, Mr Mare did not respond or take any action to address the incomplete application. The court concluded that the failure to comply with the fee requirement justified the dismissal of the application under section 587(1)(a) of the Act. As a result, the application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court, as the dismissal of the application under section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act concluded the 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.