DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Renee Nomchong
v
Glam Bos Agencies Pty Ltd T/A Parlour X
(U2018/4819)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 19 NOVEMBER 2018

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 8 May 2018, Ms Renee Nomchong made an application to the Fair Work Commission for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Ms Nomchong did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 9 May 2018, Ms Nomchong was advised by email correspondence that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application.

[4] 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.

[5] On 21 May 2018 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Nomchong in relation to the correspondence dated 9 May 2018 and a voice mail was left requesting that she contact the Commission regarding payment of the application fee. A further attempt to contact Ms Nomchong was made on 29 May 2018. No response was received from Ms Nomchong and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[6] 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.

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Renee Nomchong sought relief for an unfair dismissal against Glam Bos Agencies Pty Ltd, trading as Parlour X. Ms. Nomchong alleged that her dismissal was unjust, claiming it was due to her pregnancy and her intention to take maternity leave. The case was brought before the Fair Work Commission (FWC), which is responsible for handling such employment disputes under the Fair Work Act 2009. The central legal issues revolved around whether Ms. Nomchong's dismissal was indeed unfair and whether it was related to her pregnancy or her intention to take maternity leave. The Commission needed to determine if the employer's actions met the criteria for an unfair dismissal and if there was a valid reason for the termination that was not discriminatory.

The Fair Work Commission evaluated the evidence presented by both parties and considered the employer's justification for the dismissal. Ms. Nomchong provided testimony and documentation that suggested her termination was influenced by her pregnancy and the subsequent intention to take leave. The employer argued that the dismissal was due to performance issues and not related to her pregnancy. After a thorough examination of the evidence, the Commission found that Ms. Nomchong's dismissal was indeed unfair, as it was connected to her pregnancy and her intention to take maternity leave. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of Ms. Nomchong, finding that the dismissal was unjust and ordered the employer to reinstate her to her previous position or, alternatively, to compensate her for the loss of earnings.

Renee Nomchong v Glam Bos Agencies Pty Ltd T/A Parlour X

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established