Shaun Boland v Wesfresh Summary

[2025] FWC 1081

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION AND ORDER

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Shaun Boland
v

Wesfresh

(U2025/1642)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON

SYDNEY, 16 APRIL 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application fee not paid or waived – application not made in accordance with the Act - application dismissed.

On 14 February 2025, Mr Shaun Boland made an unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The application filed by Mr Boland was incomplete insofar as the application fee was not paid or waived.

Commission staff attempted to contact Mr Boland on 18 February, 21 February, 26 February, 5 March, 12 March, 13 March, 18 March and 19 March 2025 by telephone, SMS and email.

Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss an application if it has not been made in accordance with the Act. Mr Boland has had ample opportunity to pay the application fee or apply for a waiver, and also to show why his application should not be dismissed under s.587 (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [15]-[16] and the cases cited therein).

I make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Shaun Boland on 14 February 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shaun Boland filed an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission on 14 February 2025, which was incomplete as the application fee was neither paid nor waived. Despite multiple attempts by Commission staff to contact Mr Boland to rectify the omission, he did not address the incomplete application. The Deputy President, Easton, dismissed the application for non-compliance with the Act, specifically section 587, which allows the Commission discretion to dismiss an application not made in accordance with the Act. The dismissal hinged on Mr Boland’s failure to either pay the application fee, apply for a waiver, or demonstrate a valid reason for the dismissal of his application under section 587 of the Fair Work Act.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the application was properly made under the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly in light of the failure to pay the requisite application fee or seek a waiver. Additionally, the court considered whether Mr Boland had sufficient opportunity to remedy the incomplete application and whether the application should be dismissed due to non-compliance with the Act. The court referenced previous cases, including Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302, to support its decision. The central issue was whether the application was made in accordance with the requirements of the Act and if Mr Boland had acted reasonably in addressing the incomplete application.

The Fair Work Commission found that Mr Boland had ample opportunity to rectify the incomplete application by paying the fee or applying for a waiver. Despite multiple attempts by Commission staff to contact him, Mr Boland did not address the incomplete application. The Deputy President concluded that the application was not made in accordance with the Act and dismissed it under section 587. The court emphasized that while Mr Boland had opportunities to rectify the situation, he did not take any action to do so. This led to the dismissal of his unfair dismissal application. The court made it clear that the application fee is a mandatory requirement and non-compliance results in dismissal.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application made by Mr Shaun Boland on 14 February 2025. The dismissal was based on the incomplete nature of the application, specifically the failure to pay the application fee or seek a waiver, and non-compliance with the Act. The court noted that Mr Boland had numerous opportunities to rectify the incomplete application but failed to do so. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and no further action will be taken on the matter.

Shaun Boland v Wesfresh

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established