Shalee Tull v Terry White Chemists Rockhampton Central

[2015] FWC 4991

[2015] FWC 4991

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Shalee Tull
v
Terry White Chemists Rockhampton Central
(U2015/8910)

COMMISSIONER WILSON MELBOURNE, 23 JULY 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 28 June 2015, Ms Shalee Tull made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

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

[3] On 30 June 2015, the Fair Work Commission left a telephone voice message for Ms Tull to contact the Commission as her application indicated she was only seeking her entitlements and wages.

[4] On 1 July 2015, Miss Tull was advised via email correspondence that her application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application. On the same date, the Commission attempted to contact Miss Tull and a voice messaged was left for Ms Tull to contact the Commission.

[5] Section 395, 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.

[6] On 14 July 2015, the Commission attempted to contact Miss Tull in relation to the correspondence dated 1 July 2015. A voice message was left requesting Miss Tull to contact the Commission to discuss her application and payment.

[7] No response was received from Miss Tull and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[8] 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.

[9] 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, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR569692>