Steven John Cauberg v Specialized Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 653

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Steven John Cauberg
v

Specialized Australia Pty Ltd

(U2022/3492)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 25 MARCH 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

On 21 March 2022 the Commission received payment of a lodgement fee in relation to an application for unfair dismissal of Mr John Cauberg. 21 March 2021 was (on its face) the 21^st day after Mr Cauberg’s dismissal and hence the final day within which he could make an application within the timeframe specified by the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

On 22 March Mr Cauberg emailed the Commission to confirm his application had been received as he had not received an email confirmation as he had expected. Mr Cauberg attached a copy of his application form that he understood had been lodged with his payment of 21 March 2021

Mr Cauberg had attempted to make his application and had (successfully) paid the filing fee using the Commission’s on-line lodgement system (OLS). Due to a technical issue with the OLS the fee was paid successfully but there was an error with the completed application form which was caught in a “pending” location within the Commission’s OLS.

The Commission, with some technical assistance, has been able to access the completed application form from the ‘pending’ folder and has been able to confirm that what was in the pending folder was a completed application in the same form as that emailed by Mr Cauberg to the Commission on 22 March 2022.

I am satisfied that I should, and I do, waive the irregularity in the manner in which the application was made to the Commission pursuant to s.596(b) of the FW Act. The irregularity, in this case, was the separation of the application form from the fee payment system. I am therefore satisfied that the application of Mr Cauberg was filed with the Commission on 21 March 2022 and that date should be recorded as the date the application was made.

In most cases such an issue will not result in an application arriving more than 21 days after an application has been made – if such an issue was discovered within 21 days the separation of the two steps of the application process would not be an issue as to the validity of the application made. The issue arises in this case only because the application and payment were attempted in the evening on the 21^st day after the dismissal took effect. The problem was then not identified until after the 21^st day.

I would further observe that, given the circumstances outlined above, if necessary, I would grant an extension of time within which the application for unfair dismissal could be made were it necessary to do so.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Steven John Cauberg versus Specialized Australia Pty Ltd involves an application for an unfair dismissal remedy. Mr Cauberg applied to the Fair Work Commission, and the application was accompanied by the relevant fee. However, due to a technical issue with the online lodgement system, the application form was separated from the fee payment. The Commission, with some technical assistance, was able to retrieve the completed application form from the ‘pending’ folder and confirm it was indeed a valid application. The Commission exercised its discretion under section 596(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 to waive the irregularity in the manner in which the application was made. The Commissioner was satisfied that the application was filed with the Commission on the 21st day after Mr Cauberg’s dismissal and that date should be recorded as the date the application was made.

The legal issues in this case centred around the procedural requirements for making an application for unfair dismissal and the discretion available to the Commission under section 596(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The central issue was whether the technical error with the online lodgement system rendered the application invalid due to the separation of the application form from the fee payment. The Commissioner considered the circumstances of the case, including the fact that the application and payment were attempted in the evening on the 21st day after the dismissal took effect. The problem was only identified after the 21st day. The Commissioner concluded that the application was indeed valid and exercised the discretion to waive the procedural irregularity.

The Commissioner’s reasoning was based on the unique circumstances of the case and the technical difficulties encountered by Mr Cauberg. The Commissioner noted that the separation of the application form from the fee payment system was an irregularity that could potentially render an application invalid. However, in this case, the irregularity was identified after the 21st day, and the application was successfully completed and submitted on the 21st day. The Commissioner was satisfied that the application was filed with the Commission on the 21st day and that the date should be recorded as the date the application was made. The Commissioner also noted that, given the circumstances, they would grant an extension of time within which the application for unfair dismissal could be made if necessary.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the application of Mr Steven John Cauberg for an unfair dismissal remedy was accepted as valid, and the date of the application was recorded as 21 March 2022. The Commission also noted that, in the circumstances, it would grant an extension of time within which the application for unfair dismissal could be made if necessary.

Steven John Cauberg v Specialized Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established