GENERAL PROTECTIONS – costs – ss.372, 375B, 611 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicant stood down by the respondent and resigned on 9 November 2015 – made application under s.372 of FW Act on 13 November 2015 – alleged that respondent did not grant him bereavement leave; harassed, coerced and bullied him when he took carers leave and failed to pay him various entitlements – respondent submitted application was vexatious and instituted without reasonable cause – application for collateral purpose to obtain a review of the payment and calculation of his wages and other entitlements – respondent sent a settlement offer on 3 December 2015 – matter proceeded to a conciliation conference on 4 December 2015 where applicant amended his application to a s.365 application alleging he was constructively dismissed – s.372 application constructively dismissed – respondent agreed to prepare a reconciliation of wages and entitlements at the conference which was received by the applicant on 18 December 2015 – applicant then discontinued his application by email the same day – respondent sought costs on 18 December 2015 under ss.611 and 375B of FW Act – relied on previous submissions about the s.372 application and additionally submitted the continuation of the proceeding caused costs to be incurred due to an unreasonable act or omission – Commission held costs application under s.375B invalid because the original application made under s.372 – held nothing to suggest application’s intention was to annoy or embarrass the respondent and application was not untenable or manifestly groundless – held application not bought for a collateral purpose but to investigate disputed leave entitlements and claims of bullying and harassment as well as a review of entitlements – held not reasonably apparent to the applicant at the time the application was made that there were no reasonable prospects of success – held respondent did not need to attend the conciliation conference if they believed the application was groundless – costs application dismissed. Adams v J A Fillmore and Co
…
