[6] I wrote again to the Applicant on 15 June 2010 in the following terms:

"Your email seems to assert that the reason your application was lodged outside the 14 day time limit was because you had lodged an application in the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission (WAIRC). Enquiries of the WAIRC indicate that an application was lodged with them on 10 April 2010. Your application indicates that your employment was terminated on 2 March 2010. That would mean your application was lodged nearly four weeks out of time. Indeed it would seem your application was not lodged within the time allowed by the WAIRC.

You are again requested to provide information addressing those questions outlined in my letter of 11 May 2010. Another copy of that letter can be provided upon request."

[7] The Applicant responded by email on 15 June 2010 in the following terms:

"As per the letter that I had sent to the WAIRC, I stated that I was late in my application because I had indeed tried to speak to Mr Hegarty on numerous occasions, before I took it further, also sending an email and requesting my job back. The WAIRC have a 28 calendar day application time and i was just outside of this, when I gave reason that I had been trying myself to contact Mr Hegarty to conciliate outside of taking things further.

I had been initially trying to work this out with Mr Hegarty to no avail."

[8] The Applicant also indicated she would be calling a witness and made other allegations in respect of the treatment of that employee.

[9] The reason for the delay seems to have primarily been that the Applicant was seeking information from the Respondent, although that was not what was initially the reason provided by the Applicant. The initial reason provided made no reference to that being a reason at all but rather simply that she had lodged with the WAIRC. She lodged the application in the WAIRC on a Saturday morning and she was contacted on the following Monday. Her Application here was lodged within three days of that contact. The application lodged in the WAIRC was also apparently outside the 28 day time limit allowed there.

[10] There was also no information provided in response to my initial letter to the Applicant on 11 May 2010 regarding what actions she took to dispute the termination (other than the lodging in the WAIRC on 10 April 2010). I infer from her response on 15 June 2010 that she took the action of endeavouring to speak to the Respondent and indeed reconcile the situation including seeking re-employment.

[11] I have no information to make any observations about whether the Respondent would suffer prejudice. There is also insufficient information to form any firm views about the merits of the application, although I consider the information provided by the Applicant does not evince a strong case. I also note that the Respondent disputes that there was a termination of employment at the Respondent's initiative. I have taken account of the fairness as between the Applicant and other persons in a similar position.

[12] There is nothing exceptional about lodging in the WAIRC when the application should have been lodged in FWA. There is also nothing exceptional about the Applicant endeavouring to reconcile with the Respondent or even of having difficulty canvassing anything with the Respondent. Each of those types of reasons are regularly encountered here.

[13] The provisions of s.394(4) of the FW Act make it mandatory to lodge matters of this type within 14 days. That obligation is not absolute and may be altered if exceptional circumstances exist. The FW Act does not provide for an application to be allowed if there has been inadvertence or accident by the Applicant. If it had been intended that inadvertence or accident to allow applications to be made beyond the 14 days provided then the legislation would have reflected that intention. Those issues, i.e. accident and inadvertence, are matters that may influence whether exceptional circumstances exist but without more than is provided here it is unlikely it would constitute anything exceptional.

[14] I do not consider that exceptional circumstances exist here and as a consequence the application is not allowed.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer