DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Stephen Ball
v
Hairjamm Pty Ltd
(U2018/1804)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 15 MARCH 2018

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – application dismissed.

[1] On 22 February 2018, Mr Stephen Ball made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Ball did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 22 February 2018, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Ball by telephone regarding the payment of the required fee. As he did not answer, a voice message was left requesting that he return the Commission’s call. On the same day, email correspondence was sent to Mr Ball regarding the required fee, and stating in the absence of any advice from him within 14 days, the application may be dismissed. Mr Ball did not return the Commission’s call and did not respond to the email correspondence.

[4] On 6 March 2018, the Commission contacted Mr Ball my telephone regarding the required fee. A voicemail was left requesting that he return the Commission’s call. Mr Ball did not return the call.

[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] 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.

[7] 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

In the Fair Work Commission, Stephen Ball filed an application for relief against Hairjamm Pty Ltd for unfair dismissal. Ball, a former employee of Hairjamm, alleged that his dismissal was unjust and sought reinstatement or compensation. Hairjamm contested the claim, asserting that the dismissal was lawful and justified under the applicable employment laws.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Hairjamm's decision to terminate Ball's employment was fair and in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission had to consider whether Hairjamm had a valid reason related to Ball’s performance or conduct, whether the company followed the required procedural steps, and if the decision was proportionate to the circumstances.

After examining the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the Commission concluded that Hairjamm had valid grounds for terminating Ball's employment. The decision was based on Ball's performance issues, which Hairjamm had documented and addressed through proper procedures. The Commission found that Hairjamm had followed the requisite steps in managing the performance concerns and that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed.

Stephen Ball v Hairjamm Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established