| [2023] FWC 1025 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Samara Robins
v
Damian Coppolecchia
(U2023/2287)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’NEILL | MELBOURNE, 1 MAY 2023 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy
On 23 March 2023 Ms Samara Robins 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 Ms Robins did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.
On 24 March 2023 the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Robins’ 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 7 calendar days the application may be dismissed.
On 27 March 2023 an SMS notification was sent to Ms Robins’ nominated telephone number advising of the requirement to action the payment request email from the Fair Work Commission.
On 28 March 2023 the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Robins’ nominated email address reminding 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, the application may be dismissed.
A final attempt to contact Ms Robins on her nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 30 March 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered. A voicemail message was left advising Ms Robins that payment of the required fee was still outstanding. It warned if no payment is received by close of business 30 March 2023, the matter will be referred to a Member of the Commission who may dismiss the application.
To date there has been no response from Ms Robins, 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.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR761528>
- AGLC
- Samara Robins v Damian Coppolecchia [2023] FWC 1025
- Case
- [2023] FWC 1025
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Deputy President were whether the application was made in accordance with the FW Act, and if not, whether the application should be dismissed. Section 395 of the FW Act mandates that an application to the FWC must be accompanied by the prescribed fee. The failure to include this fee rendered the application non-compliant with the Act. Furthermore, section 587(1)(a) of the FW Act allows the FWC to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act. Given Robins' failure to comply with the statutory requirements, the Deputy President found that the application did not meet the necessary criteria for proceeding.
In dismissing the application, the Deputy President noted that Robins had been repeatedly informed of the need to pay the filing fee or submit a waiver form, yet she did not respond to any of the FWC's communications. The Deputy President concluded that the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act, and thus, it was dismissed pursuant to section 587(1)(a). This decision highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when lodging an application with the FWC.
No orders were made as the application was dismissed outright.
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.