Simon James Campbell v Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd

Case [2022] FWC 1191


[2022] FWC 1191

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Simon James Campbell
v

Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd

(U2022/2796)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 18 MAY 2022

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – incomplete application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

  1. On 4 March 2022, Mr Simon James Campbell 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).

  1. The application form filed by Mr Campbell was incomplete in that he did not provide his signature on the application and the application remains unpaid.

  1. On 7 March 2022, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Campbell on his nominated telephone number to request the missing details. He did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting he provide a signed and completed F2 application, and to contact the Commission to arrange payment of the filing fee.

  1. Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Campbell’s nominated email address advising that he needed to provide a signed application form as the application was currently incomplete. That correspondence also advised that if a signed copy of the application and payment of the filing fee was not provided within 14 days, the application may be dismissed. An SMS notification was also sent to Mr Campbell’s nominated telephone number, requesting that he contact the Commission.

  1. As the required information was not received, on 23 March 2022 the Commission contacted Mr Campbell on his nominated telephone number. The Commission advised him that his application was unpaid and unsigned, and should he wish to continue with the matter he must provide a signed application with payment of the filing fee by close of business on the 25 March 2022. The Commission also advised that the application was considered to be lodged out of time and he may have to provide further reasoning as to why the application was lodged after the required 21 calendar days from when his dismissal was effective. Mr Campbell advised that he wished to continue with the matter pending seeking independent legal advice. Mr Campbell also confirmed that he would notify the Commission by 25 March 2022.

  1. To date, no further response has been received and Mr Campbell has not provided the necessary details as requested.

  1. 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.

  1. In these circumstances, I have determined that the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act.

  1. As such, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An order to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR741669>

Details
AGLC
Simon James Campbell v Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 1191
Case
[2022] FWC 1191
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Simon James Campbell brought an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). The application was against his former employer, Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd. The central issue was whether the dismissal of Mr Campbell was unfair and if the Commission should grant him relief. However, the application was incomplete and unpaid, and despite multiple attempts by the Commission to contact Mr Campbell to request the missing details and payment, he did not respond. Consequently, the Commission considered the application under section 587 of the FW Act, which allows the Commission to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act, is frivolous or vexatious, or has no reasonable prospect of success.

The primary legal issue was whether Mr Campbell's application complied with the procedural requirements of the FW Act. The Commission found that the application was incomplete as it lacked Mr Campbell's signature and the filing fee was not paid. Despite multiple attempts to contact Mr Campbell to rectify these issues, he did not provide the necessary information within the stipulated timeframe. The Commissioner determined that the application did not meet the requirements under section 587(1)(a) of the FW Act as it was not made in accordance with the Act. The Commissioner concluded that the application should be dismissed under section 587 of the FW Act. The reasoning was based on the failure of Mr Campbell to comply with the procedural prerequisites for lodging an application for unfair dismissal.

The Fair Work Commission, under the authority of Commissioner Bissett, dismissed Mr Campbell's application for unfair dismissal. The dismissal was pursuant to section 587(1)(a) of the FW Act, which allows the Commission to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act. An order to this effect will be issued shortly. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements when lodging an application with the Commission.

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.