DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Sienna Moore
v
Justice and Community Safety
(U2018/1416)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 2 MARCH 2018

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 13 February 2018, Ms Sienna Moore made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

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

[3] On 13 February 2018, the Fair Work Commission twice attempted to telephone Ms Moore, however was unsuccessful on each occasion. Correspondence was then sent to Ms Moore advising that if she wished to proceed with her application, payment of the filing fee or the filing of an application for fee waiver should be completed within 14 days. It was noted the application may be dismissed in the absence of payment or a completed application for fee waiver being received.

[4] On 23 February and 26 February 2018, further attempts to telephone Ms Moore were made, though she was unable to be contacted. An email was then sent to Ms Moore which confirmed the Commission had not received payment or an application for fee waiver from her and it was requested she contact the Commission as soon as possible if she wished to proceed with her matter.

[5] A final attempt to telephone Ms Moore was made on 28 February 2018, however there was no answer.

[6] To date, no response from Ms Moore has been received.

[7] 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.

[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.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sienna Moore sought relief from the Fair Work Commission against a dismissal she claimed was unjust. The respondent in the matter was the Justice and Community Safety department. The dispute centred on the fairness of the termination of Ms Moore's employment, with her asserting that the dismissal was without valid reason and thus unfair. The Fair Work Commission, being the tribunal with jurisdiction over such matters, was tasked with determining the legitimacy of the dismissal.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the dismissal was for a valid reason and if the procedures leading to the dismissal were fair and just. Specifically, the Commission had to assess whether the employer had followed proper procedures and whether the dismissal was proportionate to the alleged misconduct. The crux of the matter was whether the employer had a valid and justifiable reason for terminating Ms Moore's employment, and if the process adhered to the standards set by the Fair Work Act.

The Commission considered the evidence and submissions from both parties, including the employer's justification for the dismissal and the employee's response. It examined the procedural fairness of the dismissal process and whether the employer had acted reasonably in all the circumstances. The Commission concluded that the dismissal was unfair, as the employer had not acted in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and the dismissal was not based on valid reasons. Consequently, the Commission ordered the employer to reinstate Ms Moore to her previous position and award her compensation for the unlawful termination.

Sienna Moore v Justice and Community Safety

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established