Angela Jager-Haala v Catholic Education Northern Territory [2024] FWC 1883

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.365—General protections Angela Jager-Haala v Catholic Education Northern Territory (C2024/2900) DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON SYDNEY, 18 JULY 2024 Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal [1] On 3 May 2024, Angela Jager-Haala made an application under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Ms Jager-Haala alleges that she was dismissed in contravention of the general protection provisions in Part 3-1 of the Act. [2] The application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) or by a completed application for waiver of the lodgement fee. [3] Fair Work Commission staff sent a payment request to Ms Jager-Haala directly on 8 May 2024. Staff also sent an SMS on 9 May 2024 asking Ms Jager-Haala to action her payment request email. Ms Jager-Haala did not respond to either message. [4] A reminder to pay was sent to Ms Jager-Haala on 15 May 2024. No response was received. [5] On 17 May 2024 Commission staff contacted Ms Jager-Haala on her nominated telephone number and Ms Jager-Haala advised that she will access the payment request email and pay the fee online. To date no payment has been received. [6] The matter was referred to my chambers on 17 June 2024 and there were further attempts to contact Ms Jager-Haala by telephone on 4 July 2024, 9 July 2024 and 16 July 2024. Voicemail messages were once again left for Ms Jager-Haala asking her to take action. [7] One final notice email was sent to Ms Jager-Haala on 9 July 2024 regarding payment, and a follow-up email was sent on 17 July 2024 asking Ms Jager-Haala to urgently ring chambers. [8] To date, Ms Jager-Haala has not responded to any correspondence from the Fair Work Commission, nor has she paid the lodgement fee or applied for a waiver of the fee. [2024] FWC 1883 DECISION -- 1 of 3 -- [2024] FWC 1883 2 Legislative framework [9] Section 367(1) of the Act requires that an application under s.365 “must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.” At the time Ms Jager-Haala’s application was made the regulations prescribed a fee of $83.30. The regulations also allow for an application to be made for the fee to be waived. [10] Section 587 of the 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 prospects of success. Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A. (2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application: (a) is frivolous or vexatious; or (b) has no reasonable prospects of success. (3) The FWC may dismiss an application: (a) on its own initiative; or (b) on application.” Consideration and conclusion [11] Ms Jager-Haala has neither paid the lodgement fee or sought a fee waiver. Accordingly, the application is not made in accordance with s.367 of the Act. -- 2 of 3 -- [2024] FWC 1883 3 [12] Ms Jager-Haala has taken no action to address the deficiency despite several invitations to do so and despite being notified of the potential consequences for her application if the deficiency is not rectified. In these circumstances, I have decided to exercise my discretion to dismiss the application in accordance with s.587(1)(a) of the Act. [13] The application is dismissed. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR777123> -- 3 of 3 --