Reilly Holman v Warralodge Pty Ltd T/A Gibb Bros

[2018] FWC 6903

[2018] FWC 6903

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Reilly Holman
v
Warralodge Pty Ltd T/A Gibb Bros
(U2018/10631)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY MELBOURNE, 9 NOVEMBER 2018

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 15 October 2018, Mr Reilly Holman made an application, via registered post, to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Holman did not pay the required fee.

[3] Following receipt of Mr Holman’s application, the Commission attempted to telephone Mr Holman in relation to the payment of the required fee. This was unsuccessful and a voicemail was unable to be left. Email correspondence was subsequently sent to Mr Holman’s nominated email address advising that if he did not pay the application fee or make an application to have the fee waived within 14 days, his application may be dismissed.

[4] On 23 and 29 October 2018, further attempts to telephone Mr Holman were made by the Commission in relation to the payment of the required fee. On both occasions, Mr Holman could not be contacted and voicemails were left seeking his return call.

[5] To date, Mr Holman has not responded to the Commission’s correspondence.

[6] Section 395 of the Act, which deals with application fees, provides:

“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.”

[7] Section 587(1) of the 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 prospects of success.”

[8] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, Mr Holman’s application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR702187>