| [2023] FWC 2204 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Riley John Poole
v
Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd
(U2023/7004)
| COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 1 SEPTEMBER 2023 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy
On 31 July 2023 Mr Riley John Poole 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).
The application was incomplete in that Mr Poole did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.
On 2 August 2023 the Commission sent correspondence to Mr Poole’s nominated email address advising that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he 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.
On 3 August 2023 an SMS notification was sent to Mr Poole’s nominated telephone number advising of the requirement to action the payment request email from the Fair Work Commission.
On 7 August 2023 the Commission sent correspondence to Mr Poole’s nominated email address reminding that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he 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.
A final attempt to contact Mr Poole on his nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 10 August 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered. A voicemail message was left advising Mr Poole that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.
To date there has been no response from Mr Poole, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.
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.
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.
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.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR765756>
- AGLC
- Riley John Poole v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 2204
- Case
- [2023] FWC 2204
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the FWC was whether the application was made in accordance with the FW Act, specifically whether the application complied with the fee requirements outlined in section 395 of the FW Act. The FWC considered whether the application could be dismissed under section 587(1)(a) of the FW Act for not being made in accordance with the Act due to the failure to pay the prescribed application fee. The Commission needed to determine whether Mr Poole's failure to comply with the fee requirement justified the dismissal of the application.
The FWC found that the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act because it was not accompanied by the prescribed application fee. The Commission noted that despite multiple attempts to contact Mr Poole and provide him with opportunities to rectify the deficiencies, there was no response from Mr Poole, and neither the fee nor the waiver form was provided. The FWC concluded that the application was dismissed pursuant to section 587(1)(a) of the FW Act for not being made in accordance with the Act.
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.