Timothy Simpson Marshall v Uber Technologies Inc T/A Uber Technologies Inc

[2018] FWC 7165

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Timothy Simpson Marshall

Uber Technologies Inc T/A Uber Technologies Inc

(U2018/6884)

Deputy President Dean

SYDNEY, 26 NOVEMBER 2018

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application dismissed.

On 5 July 2018, Mr Timothy Simpson Marshall made an application to the Fair Work Commission for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

Mr Marshall did not pay the required fee.

On 6 July 2018 Mr Marshall was advised by telephone that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application.

Section 395 of the Act, 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.

Further attempts to contact Mr Marshall were made by telephone on 31 July,
2 October, 5, 12 and 21 November 2018 and by email on 2 October and 12 November 2018.

No response was received from Mr Marshall and payment of the required fee has not been made.
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.

Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied and find that the application was not made in accordance with the Act as the application was not accompanied by the prescribed fee. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved an application by Timothy Simpson Marshall against Uber Technologies Inc T/A Uber Technologies Inc, seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The applicant, Mr. Marshall, claimed he was unfairly dismissed from his position as a driver for Uber, asserting that his dismissal was unjust and not in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness. The Commission was tasked with determining the validity of Mr. Marshall's claims and whether his dismissal was indeed unfair.

The legal issues central to this case revolved around the interpretation and application of the unfair dismissal provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to assess whether Mr. Marshall's dismissal was procedurally unfair, whether it was substantively unfair, and if it constituted a valid reason for termination. This involved examining the evidence presented by both parties regarding the circumstances leading to the termination, the process followed, and the reasons provided by Uber for the dismissal.

The Commission found that Mr. Marshall's dismissal was procedurally fair, as Uber had followed its internal policies and provided him with an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the dismissal was substantively fair and that Uber had a valid reason for terminating Mr. Marshall's employment. The evidence demonstrated that Mr. Marshall had engaged in conduct that breached Uber's policies, which justified his dismissal. Consequently, the application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established