1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.372—General protections George Jackson v Wagner Corporation (C2024/4952) DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON SYDNEY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2024 Application to deal with other contraventions dispute – application dismissed. [1] On 18 July 2024 Mr George Jackson made a general protections application not involving dismissal to the Fair Work Commission under s.372 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) with the assistance of Recover Legal. [2] For the following reasons I am satisfied that Mr Jackson’s application has not been made in accordance with the Act and that it is appropriate to dismiss the application. [3] Section 395 of the Act is in the following terms: “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.” [4] Mr Jackson’s application was incomplete because he did not pay the required fee or file a completed request to waive the fee. [2024] FWC 2562 DECISION AND ORDER [2024] FWC 2562 2 [5] The Commission staff contacted Mr Jackson and his representative on the following dates: • 23 July 2024 by email; • 24 July 2024 by SMS; • 26 July 2024 by email; • 6 August 2024 by SMS and telephone; • 8 August 2024 by SMS and telephone; and • 4 September 2024 by telephone. [6] Mr Jackson was advised that he must pay the filing fee or apply for a waiver if he wished to proceed with the application. Mr Jackson was also warned that the application could be dismissed if the filing fee was not paid. [7] To date there has been no response from Mr Jackson, no fee paid, and no waive request received. [8] 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. … (3) The FWC may dismiss an application: (a) on its own initiative; or (b) on application.” [9] Mr Jackson’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a)) because the prescribed fee (per s.395) has not been paid or waived. Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Mr Jackson’s application. [10] Mr Jackson has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application (see generally Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge [2024] FWC 1302 at [15]-[16] and the cases cited therein). The Commission’s inquiries and warnings have largely been ignored. [11] In the circumstances I am satisfied that Mr Jackson’s application should be dismissed. [2024] FWC 2562 3 [12] I order that Mr Jackson’s application be dismissed. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR779385>