Simon Ouslinis v Anglicare Summary

[2025] FWC 419

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Simon Ouslinis
v

Anglicare

(C2025/60)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 12 FEBRUARY 2025

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

On 6 January 2025, Mr Simon Ouslinis lodged a Form F8 – General Protections Application involving dismissal (Form F8) under s 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). Mr Ouslinis alleges that he was dismissed in contravention of the general protection provisions in Part 3-1 of the Act.

The application was not accompanied by payment of the application fee, as prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Regulations). Nor was a completed Form F80 – Application for waiver of the application fee (Form F80) attached.

Context

On 6 January 2025 at approximately 4:29pm the Commission attempted to contact Mr Ouslinis on his nominated telephone number to enquire about a Form F80, as the document provided with his application was not a Form F80 as required by the Regulations.

On 8 January 2025 at 11:09am, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Ouslinis’ nominated email address advising him that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed Form F80 if he wished to proceed with the application.

On 14 January 2025 at 9:31am, the Commission emailed correspondence again to Mr Ouslinis’ nominated email address reminding him that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed Form F80 if he wished to proceed. At 9:45am, Mr Ouslinis’ responded by email advising that he wished to apply for the application fee to be waived and asking how long he would be given to make payment. At approximately 12:01pm, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Ouslinis on his nominated telephone number but the call was not answered. A voicemail was left in which it was explained that the Form F80 is available for applicants experiencing financial hardship and reiterating that Mr Ouslinis could file a completed Form F80 which would potentially result in the filing fee being waived.

On 23 January 2025 at approximately 11:17am, a final attempt was made by the Commission to contact Mr Ouslinis’ on his nominated telephone number. The call was not answered and a voicemail was left advising him that if the matter was not discontinued, a decision may be issued and published on the Fair Work Commission’s website.

To date Mr Ouslinis has not paid the application fee or filed a Form F80. Mr Ouslinis has not made any further contact with the Commission, despite being warned that his application was at risk of being dismissed.

Legislative framework

Section 587 of the 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 prospects of success.

…
(2) Despite paragraphs (1) (b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

Consideration and conclusion

In considering all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the application has not been accompanied by the prescribed fee and has not been made in accordance with the Act. Mr Ouslinis has taken no action to address the deficiency despite being notified of it by the Commission on multiple occasions. The Commission has not been made aware of any further countervailing circumstances impacting on Mr Ouslinis’ capacity to respond to the Commission’s attempts to contact him or to provide Form F80. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to dismiss the purported application in accordance with s.587(1)(a) of the Act.

The application is dismissed. An Order[1] to this effect will be issued with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] PR784288.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the case of Simon Ouslinis v Anglicare, the applicant, Mr Simon Ouslinis, filed a General Protections Application involving dismissal under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was lodged on 6 January 2025 and alleged that Mr Ouslinis was dismissed in contravention of the general protection provisions in Part 3-1 of the Act. However, the application was not accompanied by the requisite application fee, nor was a completed Form F80 – Application for waiver of the application fee attached, as required by the Fair Work Regulations 2009. Despite multiple attempts by the Fair Work Commission to contact Mr Ouslinis to address this deficiency, he did not take any action to rectify the situation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application could be dismissed for non-compliance with the Act and Regulations, specifically regarding the payment of the application fee or the submission of a Form F80. Under section 587 of the Act, the Fair Work Commission has the authority to dismiss an application if it is not made in accordance with the Act, and such dismissal may be made on the Commission's own initiative. The court had to determine whether Mr Ouslinis's failure to comply with the procedural requirements warranted dismissal of the application.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the procedural history and the multiple attempts by the Commission to contact Mr Ouslinis to address the deficiency in his application. The court noted that Mr Ouslinis had not responded to the Commission's attempts to contact him or provided any explanation for his failure to comply with the Act and Regulations. The court concluded that the application was not made in accordance with the Act and that Mr Ouslinis had taken no action to address the deficiency despite being notified by the Commission. In these circumstances, the court determined that it was appropriate to dismiss the application in accordance with section 587(1)(a) of the Act.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application, finding that it had not been made in accordance with the Act due to the lack of the prescribed fee or a completed Form F80. An order was issued dismissing the application and noting that it would be published on the Fair Work Commission’s website.

Simon Ouslinis v Anglicare

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established