The appellant was dismissed from his role as a Level 2 Community Work Officer due to allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards female staff. The appellant’s appointment was subject to a six-month probationary period, during which either party could terminate the contract with one week's notice. The respondent annulled the appellant's appointment during the probationary period, providing one week's pay in lieu of notice. The appellant contested the dismissal on the grounds of substantive and procedural fairness.

The appellant's appeal was filed four months late, which he attributed to researching his options and submitting applications in the wrong jurisdiction. The Public Service Appeal Board reviewed the Commission's records and found that the appellant had submitted an unfair dismissal application, which was not accepted due to jurisdictional issues, and that he then submitted the correct Form, which was also not accepted until he addressed deficiencies in his application. The respondent acknowledged that the appellant's first application had been filed within the 28-day period but maintained the delay was not justified and the appeal lacked merit due to the conditions around probationary employment. The Appeal Board accepted the respondent's submissions regarding the delay and the merits of the appeal.

The Appeal Board considered the appeal based on the evidence before it. The principles of probationary employment allowed the employer to terminate the employment during the probationary period if the employee was not meeting the required standards. The Appeal Board found that the concerns raised about the appellant’s conduct had been genuinely held, he had been adequately informed of the required standards, and he had received adequate support and training. The Appeal Board concluded that the decision to terminate the appellant's probationary employment was consistent with the purpose and principles of probationary employment.

Accordingly, the Appeal Board dismissed the appellant’s application for an extension of time and dismissed the appeal.

The decision can be read here.

The applicant was employed by the respondent as the Manager of a caravan park and accommodation, until he was advised that he was no longer the Manager, and his duties were reduced to taking bookings. The applicant claimed these changes were made unilaterally and amounted to a repudiation of his employment contract, leading to his unfair dismissal claim.

The respondent denied that the applicant was dismissed, asserting that he voluntarily resigned from his position.  Additionally, the respondent argued it was a national system employer under the Fair Work Act 2009, which meant the Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claim.

Commissioner Walkington determined that the respondent was not a trading corporation, as the respondent’s trading activities represent only a small portion of the respondent’s income, and as the overall nature of the activities of the organisation was not that of a trading corporation. The evidence showed that the respondent’s primary purpose is to assist and support community members through housing, education, employment, social welfare, and cultural initiatives. The Commissioner concluded that the activities of the respondent, including the receipt of rental payments and community contribution fees, did not constitute trading activities. As a result, Commissioner Walkington determined that the Commission did have jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The decision can be read here.