DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Zakria Abasi
v
Raminti Trading Co. Pty Ltd T/A Lattice Makers
(U2020/4882)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 8 MAY 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 15 April 2020, Mr Zakria Abasi 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).

[2] The application was incomplete in that Mr Abasi did not pay the required fee or file a completed waiver form.

[3] On 16 April 2020, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Abasi on his nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee however, the number provided on the application appeared to be incorrect. The individual who answered the call advised they had not submitted an unfair dismissal application.

[4] On the same day, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Abasi’s representative on their nominated telephone number to discuss payment of the required fee and to confirm a contact number for Mr Abasi. However, the call attempt was unsuccessful, and the Commission was not able to leave a voicemail.

[5] Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Abasi 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 advised that if payment is not made or a waiver form is not received within 14 days, the application may be dismissed.

[6] On 1 May 2020, the Commission made contact with Mr Abasi’s representative to discuss payment of the required fee and to confirm a contact number for Mr Abasi. The representative provided a contact number for Mr Abasi.

[7] A further attempt to contact Mr Abasi was made by the Commission on 1 May 2020 to obtain payment or a completed waiver form. The call was not answered, and a voicemail message was left advising Mr Abasi that payment of the required fee was still outstanding.

[8] On the same day the Commission again contacted the Mr Abasi’s representative and a voicemail was left regarding the payment of the application fee. The Commission advised the representative that if the fee was not paid by end of business the application may be dismissed.

[9] On 1 May 2020, the representative advised they would contact Mr Abasi to request him to contact the Commission to make payment.

[10] To date there has been no response from Mr Abasi, the required fee has not been paid and a completed waiver form has not been received.

[11] 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

[12] Section 587(1) of the FW Act provides:

587 Dismissing applications

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

[13] 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 to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Zakria Abasi brought an application for an unfair dismissal remedy against Raminti Trading Co. Pty Ltd, trading as Lattice Makers, before the Fair Work Commission. Mr. Abasi alleged that his dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The central dispute revolved around the grounds for his termination and whether the employer's actions were justified under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether Mr. Abasi was indeed dismissed, the grounds for dismissal, and whether the dismissal was fair in the circumstances. Additionally, the Commission needed to determine whether the employer had followed the requisite procedural steps before terminating the employment. The primary focus was on whether the employer had a valid reason for the dismissal and if the process adhered to procedural fairness.

The Fair Work Commission found that Mr. Abasi was indeed dismissed and that the employer had valid reasons for doing so, based on the evidence presented. The employer demonstrated that the dismissal was related to misconduct, which was substantiated by the evidence. The Commission also noted that the employer followed the appropriate procedural steps, including providing warnings and opportunities for Mr. Abasi to remedy the situation. As a result, the Commission ruled that the dismissal was fair, and Mr. Abasi's application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed.

Zakria Abasi v Raminti Trading Co. Pty Ltd T/A Lattice Makers

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established