Tahlia Louise Reid v Right at Home Gold Coast Northern Rivers
[2022] FWC 370
| [2022] FWC 370 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Tahlia Louise Reid
v
Right at Home Gold Coast Northern Rivers
(U2022/1241)
| COMMISSIONER BISSETT | MELBOURNE, 22 FEBRUARY 2022 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – unpaid application – dismissal at the Commission’s initiative under s.587.
On 28 January 2022 Ms Tahlia Louise Reid 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).
The application was incomplete in that Ms Reid did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.
On 31 January 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Reid on her nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee. However, Ms Reid did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting she contact the Commission to discuss her application.
Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Ms Reid and her representative advising that their application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if she 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 Ms Reid’s nominated telephone number, advising that there was a problem with her application and requesting she contact the Commission.
A final attempt to contact Ms Reid was made by the Commission on 15 February 2022 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. Ms Reid did not answer the call and a voicemail message was left requesting she contact the Commission urgently via telephone.
On 15 February 2022 the Commission contacted the applicants representative Mr Paul Hughes via telephone. The Commission explained that the matter was at risk of being dismissed as payment had not been made or a completed waiver form filed. Mr Hughes stated that the applicant had sought legal advice and intended to continue with the application. He also explained that the applicant intended to pay the application fee. The Commission reiterated that the matter may be dismissed if payment was not made, or a completed waiver form filed by close of business. Mr Hughes said that he would contact the applicant.
However, to date there has been no response from the applicant, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.
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
(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.
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
(c) the application has no reasonable prospect of success.
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 with this decision.
COMMISSIONER
[1] PR738595.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR738594>
0
0
0