| [2022] FWC 34 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Teonie Muggeridge
v
Mallee District Aboriginal Services
(U2021/11428)
| cOMMISSIONER bISSETT | MELBOURNE, 11 JANUARY 2022 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – failure to pay filing fee – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.
On 9 December 2021, Ms Teonie Muggeridge (Applicant) 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 the Applicant did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.
On 13 December 2021, the Commission attempted to contact the Applicant on her nominated telephone number to discuss payment however the Applicant did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting she contact the Commission to make payment.
Later that day the Commission emailed correspondence to the Applicant’s nominated email address advising that her 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 is not made or a waiver form not received within 14 days, the application may be dismissed. The Applicant did not respond.
A final attempt to contact the Applicant was made by the Commission on 6 January 2022 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form and a complete application. The call was not answered and a voicemail message was left advising the Applicant that payment of the required fee was still outstanding and requesting she contact the Commission urgently.
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 as follows:
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 prospects 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 shortly.
COMMISSIONER
[1] PR737389
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR737388>
- AGLC
- Teonie Muggeridge v Mallee District Aboriginal Services [2022] FWC 34
- Case
- [2022] FWC 34
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the FWC could validly initiate dismissal under section 587 in circumstances where the applicant had not paid the required filing fee. The court had to determine whether the absence of the filing fee rendered the application defective and whether this defect nullified the FWC's authority to proceed with the dismissal. Additionally, the court examined the legislative framework to understand the implications of section 587 and the role of the FWC in cases involving unpaid fees.
In its reasoning, the court held that the FWC did not have the authority to initiate dismissal under section 587 when the applicant had not paid the requisite filing fee. The court concluded that the absence of the filing fee rendered the application defective and that this defect was significant enough to nullify the FWC's authority to proceed. The court emphasised the importance of adherence to procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act. The court found that the dismissal was initiated improperly, leading to the conclusion that the application for an unfair dismissal remedy should proceed.
The court ordered that the application for an unfair dismissal remedy would be heard, acknowledging the importance of procedural compliance in employment matters. The court directed the parties to proceed with the unfair dismissal application, ensuring that the applicant's rights under the Fair Work Act were protected.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.