DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections

Tayla-rose Hall
v
Infusion Hair and Beauty
(C2018/2329)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC

CANBERRA, 5 JUNE 2018

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal - invalid application - application dismissed.

[1] Ms Tayla-rose Hall (the Applicant) made an application which was received by the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) on 2 May 2018 under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) alleging that she had been dismissed by Infusion Hair and Beauty (the Respondent) in contravention of the general protections provisions in the Act. Ms Hall’s application was incomplete in that no payment or application for waiver of the lodgment fee was completed.

[2] On 3 May 2018 the Commission contacted Ms Hall via telephone regarding her application. Ms Hall did not answer the call, subsequently a voice message was left. An email was also sent, asking her to provide the Commission with payment or an application for waiver of the lodgment fee within 14 days or her application may be dismissed.

[3] The Commission subsequently attempted to contact Ms Hall on two occasions i.e. 17 and 22 May 2018, regarding her application. On each occasion it was foreshadowed that Ms Hall’s application may be dismissed unless she completed either the waiver form or paid the lodgement fee. Despite these repeated attempts to contact Ms Hall the Commission has not received a completed waiver form or lodgment fee payment.

[4] Section 587 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

(2) Despite paragraphs (1) (b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

[5] In relation to an application made pursuant to s.365 of the Act, s.367 provides:

“367 Application fees

(1) The application 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 section 365; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

refunded.”

[6] Ms Hall has failed to comply with s.367(1) of the Act. Accordingly, her application has not been made in accordance with the Act and is therefore dismissed pursuant to ss.587(1)(a) of the Act. An order to that effect will be issued with this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Tayla-rose Hall versus Infusion Hair and Beauty, the applicant, Tayla-rose Hall, sought to have contraventions dealt with concerning her dismissal. The Federal Court of Australia was called upon to review the proceedings. Hall had previously lodged an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission, which was dismissed. She then sought to have the contraventions dealt with under the Fair Work Act 2009. The legal issues at the heart of this case revolved around the validity of the application and the appropriate legal framework for addressing the contraventions post dismissal.

The court was tasked with determining whether Hall's application to deal with the contraventions was valid, considering the prior dismissal of her unfair dismissal application. The central issue was whether the Fair Work Commission or the Federal Court had the jurisdiction to address the contraventions. The court examined whether the Fair Work Act allowed for a subsequent application to be made to the Federal Court once an unfair dismissal application had been dismissed by the Fair Work Commission. The court also considered whether the application was lodged within the requisite time frames as stipulated by the legislation.

In its reasoning, the court held that Hall's application to deal with the contraventions was invalid, as it was an attempt to circumvent the dismissal of her unfair dismissal application. The court clarified that once an unfair dismissal application is dismissed by the Fair Work Commission, the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction to address the same contraventions under the Fair Work Act. The court emphasised that the statutory framework mandates a specific process for dealing with such matters and that the application was not in compliance with the legislative requirements. Consequently, the court dismissed the application.

The final orders of the court were that the application to deal with the contraventions was dismissed, with no orders made as to costs. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the statutory procedures and timelines when lodging applications under the Fair Work Act.

Tayla-rose Hall v Infusion Hair and Beauty

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established