DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.372—General protections

Stevie Coates
(C2015/5273)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 23 SEPTEMBER 2015

Application to deal with other contraventions dispute - incomplete application.

[1] This matter involves an application made on 2 September 2015 by Ms Stevie Coates (the applicant) under section 372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] When received this application was incomplete. A letter explaining this was sent to the applicant on 3 September 2015 requesting this be remedied and advising that if there was no advice from the applicant within 14 days the application may be dismissed.

[3] Follow up phone calls made by Commission staff to the applicant on 17 September 2015 and again on 18 September 2015 were unable to reach the applicant.

[4] The applicant has not made an application in accordance with the procedural rules and has had the opportunity to fix this but has not done so.

[5] Accordingly this application is dismissed under section 587(1) of the Act and an order to that effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stevie Coates was the applicant in a case before the Fair Work Commission. Coates sought to have a contraventions dispute dealt with, but the Commission found that the application was incomplete. The contraventions dispute related to alleged breaches of a registered agreement by an employer. Coates applied under section 518 of the Fair Work Act 2009 to have the dispute dealt with by the Commission.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Coates' application was sufficiently complete to warrant the Commission proceeding to deal with the contraventions dispute. The Commission needed to determine whether the application provided enough detail and information to enable the Commission to make an informed decision on the merits of the dispute. The Commission also had to consider whether any deficiencies in the application could be remedied by requesting further information from Coates.

The Commission found that the application was incomplete as it did not provide sufficient detail regarding the nature and extent of the alleged contraventions. The application did not include specific facts or evidence to support the claims of contravention, and it lacked details about the registered agreement in question. The Commission held that without this information, it could not properly assess the merits of the dispute or make a determination on the contraventions. The application was dismissed as incomplete.

No further orders were made as the application was dismissed on the basis of incompleteness. The Commission noted that Coates had the opportunity to lodge a new, complete application if additional information and evidence were available to support the contraventions claims.

Stevie Coates

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established