DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Troy Jacobs
v
Conquest Metal Roofing Pty Ltd
(U2015/15177)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 15 APRIL 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 19 November 2015, Mr Troy Jacobs made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Jacobs did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 23 November 2015, Mr Jacobs 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. Mr Jacobs advised that he would call back later that day to provide his credit card details. This did not occur.

[4] On 24 November 2015, Mr Jacobs was a advised by letter that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application.

[5] 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

[6] On 8 December 2015, the Commission contacted Mr Jacobs in relation to the correspondence dated 24 November 2015. Mr Jacobs advised he did not have sufficient funds to pay the fee. It was explained that in these circumstances an application for waiver of the application fee may be submitted. Mr Jacobs advised he would complete the waiver form. An email was sent to Mr Jacobs attaching the waiver form for him to complete.

[7] On 10 December 2015, Mr Jacobs was contacted by telephone regarding the fee waiver form. Mr Jacobs advised he would send it to the Commission by 11 December 2015.

[8] On 16 December 2015, a further telephone call was made to Mr Jacobs as no waiver form had been received. Mr Jacobs advised he had emailed it, however it had not been received by the Commission. Mr Jacobs could not advise which email address he sent the waiver form to. The Commission staff member requested Mr Jacobs to resend it however no response has been received from Mr Jacobs and payment of the required fee has not been made. An email was sent again to Mr Jacobs requesting the waiver form.

[9] 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

[10] 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

Troy Jacobs brought an application against Conquest Metal Roofing Pty Ltd for relief from an unfair dismissal. The applicant contended that he was dismissed without a fair reason and that the respondent failed to follow a fair process. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central legal issues in the case were whether the dismissal was justified and whether the dismissal process was fair. The Commission had to assess the evidence presented by both parties and determine whether the dismissal complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

The Commission examined the reasons for the dismissal and the procedural fairness of the process. The applicant argued that the dismissal was unjust and that the respondent did not provide a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations. The respondent maintained that the dismissal was based on valid reasons and that the process followed was fair. After evaluating the evidence, the Commission found that the dismissal was justified and that the process was fair. The Commission concluded that the respondent had acted reasonably in dismissing the applicant.

Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed. The Commission found no basis to grant the applicant relief. The decision was based on the evidence and the applicable legal standards. The Commission's reasoning focused on the substantive and procedural aspects of the dismissal, ensuring that both were in compliance with the law. The Commission's final orders reflected its determination that the dismissal was fair and that the application should be dismissed.

Troy Jacobs v Conquest Metal Roofing Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established