Rebecca Szekeres v Fernwood Beverly Hills

[2022] FWC 1157

[2022] FWC 1157

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Rebecca Szekeres
v

Fernwood Beverly Hills

(U2022/3887)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT MELBOURNE, 13 MAY 2022

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – unpaid application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

1. On 1 April 2022 Ms Rebecca Szekeres 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 Ms Szekeres did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

1. On 4 April 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Szekeres on her nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee, however Ms Szekeres did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting that Ms Szekeres contact the Commission to make payment of the filing fee.

1. Later that day the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Szekeres’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 is not made or a waiver form is not received within 14 days, the application may be dismissed. An SMS notification was also sent to Ms Szekeres’s by telephone advising that there was a problem with her application and requesting she contact the Commission.

1. On 28 April 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Szekeres by telephone. A voicemail message was left requesting that Ms Szekeres contact the Commission to make payment of the filing fee.

1. Later that day the Commission again emailed correspondence to Ms Szekeres’s 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 is not made or a waiver form is not received within 14 days, the application may be dismissed.

1. On 5 May 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Szekeres by telephone. A voicemail message was left requesting that Ms Szekeres contact the Commission to make payment of the filing fee.

1. A final attempt to contact Ms Szekeres was made by the Commission on 10 May 2022 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered and a voicemail message was left advising Ms Szekeres that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.

1. To date there has been no response from Ms Szekeres, 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:

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. 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

[1] PR741587.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR741586>