s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy - application fee not paid or waived - application not made in accordance with the Act - application dismissed

[1] On 13 February 2026, the Applicant filed an application in the Fair Work Commission for an unfair deactivation remedy pursuant to s 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

[2] The Applicant's application was not made in accordance with the Act (per s 587(1)(a)) because the prescribed fee (per s 536LV) has not been paid or waived.

[3] Emails were sent to the Applicant on 27 February 2026, 2 March 2026, 10 March 2026 and 16 March 2026 requesting the Applicant to pay the application fee or apply for a waiver of the fee. The Applicant was also put on notice in that correspondence that their unfair deactivation application would be dismissed if they did not pay the application fee or seek a waiver of the fee.

[4] The Applicant has not paid the application fee or sought a waiver of the fee. The Applicant has repeatedly sought a refund of the application fee he paid in connection with an earlier unfair dismissal application. The Applicant has been informed that he is not eligible for such a refund because he discontinued his unfair dismissal application after a conciliation conference (regulation 3.07(8) of the Fair Work Regulations 2009).

[5] Section 587(1)(a) of the Act confers a discretion on the Commission to dismiss an application if it has not been made in accordance with the Act. The Applicant has had ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in their application and has had ample opportunity to show why their application should not be dismissed (Bond v Carbridge Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 1302 at [15]- [16] and the cases cited therein).

[6] Having regard to all the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to exercise my discretion under s 587(1)(a) of the Act to dismiss the Applicant's unfair deactivation application.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer