Tony-James Smith v Retail Staff Pty Ltd

Case [2023] FWC 485


[2023] FWC 485

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Tony-James Smith
v

Retail Staff Pty Ltd

(U2023/1083)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 28 FEBRUARY 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

  1. On 11 February 2023 Mr Tony-James Smith 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).

  1. The application was incomplete in that Mr Smith did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

  1. On 14 February 2023 the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Smith’s nominated email address advising that his 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 is not received within 7 calendar days the application may be dismissed.

  1. On 17 February 2023 the Commission emailed further correspondence to Mr Smith’s nominated email address reminding that his 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 is not received, the application may be dismissed. 

  1. A final attempt to contact Mr Smith on his nominated telephone number was made by the Commission on 20 February 2023 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered. A voicemail message was left advising Mr Smith that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.

  1. On 21 February 2023, the Commission emailed correspondence to the applicant’s representative, Employee Dismissals advising that the filing fee remained unpaid and that the application may be dismissed if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received.

  1. To date there has been no response from Mr Smith or Employee Dismissals, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.

  1. 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.

  1. 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 prospect of success.

  1. 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.


COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR751222>

Details
AGLC
Tony-James Smith v Retail Staff Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 485
Case
[2023] FWC 485
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tony-James Smith has applied to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal in relation to his dismissal by Retail Staff Pty Ltd. The Commission was required to determine whether the application was validly made and if it had a reasonable prospect of success. The Commission found that the application was incomplete as Mr Smith had not paid the required application fee nor filed a completed waiver form. Despite multiple attempts to contact Mr Smith and his representative to obtain the necessary fee or waiver form, no response was received. As a result, the Commission dismissed the application on the basis that it was not made in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the application was validly made under the Fair Work Act. The Commission noted that the Act requires an application to be accompanied by the prescribed fee, with provisions for fee waivers in certain circumstances. The Commission considered that, as Mr Smith did not pay the fee or file a waiver form, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. The Commission also considered whether the application was frivolous or vexatious or had no reasonable prospect of success. However, these considerations were not necessary as the application was dismissed on the basis that it was not validly made.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for unfair dismissal by Tony-James Smith on the basis that it was not made in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission found that the application was incomplete as it was not accompanied by the required fee or a completed waiver form. Despite multiple attempts to contact Mr Smith and his representative, no response was received. Consequently, the application was dismissed under section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act.

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.