The applicant commenced proceedings in the Commission, claiming that she was harshly, oppressively, and unfairly dismissed from her employment with the respondent. The applicant, who lives with disabilities, was employed as a clerk at the respondent’s cleaning service from March 2022. Initially engaged part-time, she transitioned to full-time employment in February 2023, providing administrative support for cleaning operations, particularly for clients under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). In April 2024, the respondent cited financial difficulties and proposed a reduction in the applicant’s working hours. The applicant agreed to the reduced hours. However, while on pre-approved annual leave, she received a new contract reflecting the change, including a lower pay rate. The respondent subsequently withdrew the offer of continued employment, effectively terminating the applicant’s employment.

The applicant claimed unfair dismissal, citing the abrupt withdrawal of employment, lack of consultation, and absence of proper notice or severance pay. She emphasised the impact on her wellbeing and future employment prospects. The respondent argued that the dismissal constituted a genuine redundancy necessitated by business cost-cutting, asserting that the business employed fewer than 15 staff and was therefore not obliged to pay redundancy entitlements. The respondent further stated that the applicant’s administrative duties were now shared between the respondent and her son.

Commissioner Walkington found on the evidence presented that the respondent failed to communicate the redundancy decision clearly, did not provide written notice, and maintained a facade of ongoing employment by offering a part-time contract before abruptly withdrawing it. The Commissioner found that the respondent’s actions did not meet the procedural fairness requirements for redundancy, including consultation, notice, and severance payment obligations. The respondent’s assertion regarding employee headcount was found to be incorrect, as casual employees should have been included, bringing the total to 18.

Commissioner Walkington concluded that, even if the termination was a genuine redundancy, the manner in which it was affected was harsh and unfair. The respondent failed to communicate the decision adequately, did not consult or consider alternatives, and did not provide the required notice or severance payment. The abrupt withdrawal of employment, especially given the applicant’s personal circumstances and challenges in securing alternative employment, rendered the dismissal harsh and unfair. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the applicant was unfairly dismissed.

The decision can be read here.  

The applicant commenced proceedings in the Commission in 2021 seeking compensation for her dismissal from the respondent.  The respondent denied that the applicant was unfairly dismissed and also initially objected to the jurisdiction of the commission on the basis that it was a National System Employer.  The respondent later withdrew the objection to jurisdictional grounds, and the matter was the subject of conciliation proceedings.  Following the conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred for hearing and determination.

Over the course of several months in 2022, the Commission issued directions for filing witness statements and evidence, setting deadlines and scheduled a hearing to proceed with the matter. Despite multiple reminders and opportunities, the applicant failed to file witness statements, respond to communication regarding her intention to proceed, or attend scheduled hearings. In early 2025 the Commission contacted the parties, informing the applicant that she may discontinue her matter or appear at a hearing to show cause as to why the matter should not be dismissed. 

The applicant did not attend the hearing despite proper notification, and as such Commissioner Walkington considered the applicant had failed to progress her application and did not have sufficient interest in the matter. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The decision can be read here.