General protections Bailee Sugiaman

[2024] FWC 3414 Fair Work Commission 2024-01-01

Source

Deputy President Easton

Not yet cited by other cases

This case hasn't been analysed yet.

Generate ratio, outcome, key facts, concept tags and cited-case edges. Takes ~15–30 seconds.

Authority signal

Not yet cited by other cases Signal-weighted score: 0.0

Derived from how later decisions have treated this case. Dark green = leading authority, green = positively treated, grey = neutral or sparse data, amber = caution, red = treated negatively.

Concept tags · 3

[P]General protections (FW Act Pt 3-1) [S]Unfair dismissal (WA) [S]Unfair dismissal (federal)

Cases cited in this decision · 1

Cited

[2024] FWC 1302 — Alan Geoffrey Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd T/A Carbridge

"…d or waived. Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Mr Sugiaman’s application. [8] Mr Sugiaman has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application (see generally Bond...…"

Archived text (397 words)

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.365—General protections Bailee Sugiaman (C2024/6555) DEPUTY PRESIDENT EASTON SYDNEY, 6 DECEMBER 2024 Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application dismissed. [1] On 13 September 2024 Mr Bailee Sugiaman made a general protections application to the Fair Work Commission under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). [2] Mr Sugiaman’s application was incomplete because he did not pay the required fee or file a completed request to waive the fee. [3] Commission staff contacted Mr Sugiaman on the following dates: • 17 September 2024 by email; • 14 October 2024 by telephone; and • 22 November 2024 by telephone. [4] Mr Sugiaman was advised that he must pay the filing fee or apply for a waiver if he wished to proceed with the application. Mr Sugiaman was also warned that the application could be dismissed if the filing fee was not paid within two days. [5] To date there has been no response from Mr Sugiaman, no fee paid and no completed waiver request received. [6] Section 587 of the Act includes the following provisions: “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. … [2024] FWC 3414 DECISION AND ORDER [2024] FWC 3414 2 (3) The FWC may dismiss an application: (a) on its own initiative; or (b) on application.” [7] Mr Sugiaman’s application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s.587(1)(a)) because the prescribed fee (per s.367) has not been paid or waived. Section 587 confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss Mr Sugiaman’s application. [8] Mr Sugiaman 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. [9] I have decided to dismiss Mr Sugiaman’s general protections claim using the power available under s.587(1)(a) and make the following order: 1. The application under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Mr Bailee Sugiaman on 17 September 2024 is dismissed. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR782170>