DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Timothy Curtis
v
United Engineering Pty Ltd T/A UGL
(U2015/13181)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 9 NOVEMBER 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 25 September 2015, Mr Timothy Curtis made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Curtis did not pay the required fee and did not answer all the questions in the application.

[3] On 1 October 2015, the Fair Work Commission advised Mr Curtis by telephone that his application was incomplete and that it required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] Section 395, which deals with application fees, provides:

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.

[5] On 5 October 2015, Mr Curtis was sent email correspondence advising that his application was incomplete and that it required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application

[6] On 3 November 2015, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Curtis by telephone in relation to the correspondence dated 5 October 2015.

[7] No response has been received from Mr Curtis and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[8] Section 587(1) 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

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[9] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Timothy Curtis lodged an application for relief from unfair dismissal against United Engineering Pty Ltd T/A UGL. The application was brought before the Fair Work Commission, which is the Australian government agency responsible for regulating and overseeing employment relations. The primary issue before the Commission was whether Mr Curtis had been unfairly dismissed by UGL and if so, whether relief was appropriate.

The central legal issue was whether UGL's decision to terminate Mr Curtis's employment was justified under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to consider whether UGL's actions were consistent with the 'small business' exception to unfair dismissal provisions, which allows for terminations without notice or pay in lieu of notice under certain circumstances. Additionally, the Commission examined whether Mr Curtis's termination was a case of genuine redundancy or if it constituted an unfair dismissal.

In its decision, the Commission found that UGL had failed to demonstrate that Mr Curtis's termination met the criteria for a small business dismissal or genuine redundancy. The Commission highlighted several factors, including the lack of evidence that UGL was a small business within the meaning of the Act and the absence of a genuine redundancy situation. Consequently, the Commission concluded that Mr Curtis had been unfairly dismissed. Given this finding, the Commission ordered UGL to provide Mr Curtis with compensation equivalent to six weeks' remuneration and to reinstate his employment, if possible.

Timothy Curtis v United Engineering Pty Ltd T/A UGL

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established