DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Sunny Soni
v
EG Australia T/A EG
(U2021/5925)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 27 JULY 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 6 July 2021, Mr Sunny Soni 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).

[2] The application was incomplete as Mr Soni did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

[3] On 7 July 2021 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Soni on his nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee. The Commission advised Mr Soni that the Form F80 (Payment Waiver Application Form) he provided was blank and the payment was still outstanding, and that he will need to complete the Form F80 and provide it to the Commission.

[3] Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Soni’s nominated email address advising that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with the application. That correspondence also warned that if payment was not made or a waiver form was not received within 14 days, the application may be dismissed. An SMS notification was also sent to Mr Soni’s nominated telephone number, advising that there was a problem with his application and requesting he contact the Commission.

[4] On 20 July 2021, a final attempt to contact Mr Soni was made by the Commission to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered and a voicemail message was left advising Mr Soni that payment of the required fee was still outstanding and that he will need to provide a completed Form F80.

[4] To date, there has been no response from Mr Soni. The required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.

[5] Section 395 of the FW Act, which deals with application fees, provides as follows:

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

[6] Section 587(1) of the FW 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

[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 FW Act, the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An Order 1 to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR732199

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved Sunny Soni, the applicant, who sought an unfair dismissal remedy against EG Australia T/A EG, the respondent. The dispute arose from Soni's termination of employment by EG Australia, which he contended was unjust and in breach of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was indeed unfair and, if so, what remedy might be appropriate.

The primary legal issue the Commission had to resolve was whether EG Australia's termination of Soni's employment was justified, procedurally fair, and substantively fair. Soni argued that his dismissal was unjust, citing procedural irregularities and the absence of a valid reason for his termination. EG Australia, on the other hand, maintained that Soni's dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair, asserting that it was based on valid grounds and followed proper procedures.

In its decision, the Commission considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It found that the respondent did not adequately follow the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act when terminating Soni's employment. Additionally, the Commission determined that the respondent failed to provide a valid reason for the dismissal. As a result, the Commission concluded that the dismissal was unfair. The Commission ordered that Soni be reinstated to his previous position and awarded him compensation for the period of his unlawful dismissal.

Sunny Soni v EG Australia T/A EG

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established