UNFAIR DISMISSAL APPLICATION

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

PARTIES Anthea Jackson

APPLICANT

-v-

Vault Protective Security Services

RESPONDENT

CORAM Commissioner C Tsang

DATE TUESday, 21 October 2025

FILE NO. U 100 OF 2025

CITATION NO. 2025 WAIRC 00869

Result Application dismissed

Representation

Applicant In person

Respondent No appearance

Order

WHEREAS on 9 September 2025, the applicant filed a Form 2 – Unfair Dismissal Application (Form 2), naming a business name as the respondent;

AND WHEREAS on 10 September 2025, the Commission wrote to the parties noting that the respondent named in the Form 2 is a business name held by Goldstar Assets Pty Ltd, which appears to be a national system employer. The Commission clarified the jurisdiction of the Commission over State system employment vs the jurisdiction of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) over national system employment, and requested the applicant to confirm whether her employer was Goldstar Assets Pty Ltd;

AND WHEREAS on 11 September 2025, the applicant confirmed that her employer was Goldstar Assets Pty Ltd;

AND WHEREAS on 11 September 2025, the Commission wrote to the parties clarifying the jurisdiction of the Commission over State system employers vs the jurisdiction of the FWC over national system employers. The Commission noted that as Goldstar Assets Pty Ltd appears to be a national system employer, the FWC will have jurisdiction over a claim of unfair dismissal. The Commission requested the applicant respond to the issue of jurisdiction;

AND WHEREAS on 12 September 2025, the applicant responded to the Commission, indicating that she would like to proceed with the matter;

AND WHEREAS on 12 September 2025, the Commission wrote to the parties clarifying the Commission’s jurisdiction over State system employers vs the FWC’s jurisdiction over national system employers, and requesting the applicant to discontinue the proceedings if she agrees that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to hear her unfair dismissal claim where her employer is a national system employer;

AND WHEREAS on 15 September 2025, the respondent wrote to the Commission stating that the applicant was never employed by Goldstar Assets Pty Ltd; rather, the applicant was assigned to Goldstar Assets Pty Ltd by her employer Labourplus Security, and in any event, the applicant remains employed by Labourplus Security;

AND WHEREAS on 16 September 2025, the Commission wrote to the parties noting that the Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to hearing claims of unfair dismissal from employment, and requesting the applicant to confirm whether she agrees her employer was Labourplus Security, and whether she agrees that she remains in employment with Labourplus Security;

AND WHEREAS on 17 September 2025, the applicant wrote to the Commission indicating that Labourplus Security ‘only handle the pay cycle’, and maintaining that her employer was Goldstar Assets Pty Ltd trading as Vault;

AND WHEREAS on 16 and 17 September 2025, the applicant forwarded to the Commission more than 20 emails, some of which appeared to be unrelated to either Labourplus Security or Goldstar Assets Pty Ltd trading as Vault;

AND WHEREAS on 18 September 2025, the Commission wrote to the parties noting that on the face of the 11 emails the applicant forwarded to the Commission that appeared to relate to Labourplus Security or Goldstar Assets Pty Ltd trading as Vault, it appears that the applicant’s employer was Labourplus Security, which also appears to be a national system employer. The Commission clarified that its jurisdiction is limited to claims of unfair dismissal from employment and claims brought by employees in the State employment system. The Commission requested the applicant to confirm whether she agrees that Labourplus Security was her employer, or whether she maintains that Goldstar Assets Pty Ltd trading as Vault was her employer, by 19 September 2025. The Commission indicated that, given the jurisdictional issues, if no response is received, the matter may be listed for a Show Cause Hearing for the applicant to show cause as to why the Commission should not issue an Order dismissing the matter under s 27(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) for want of jurisdiction (i.e. on the basis that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter). The Commission noted that any such Order is a matter of public record and will be published on the Commission’s website and in the Industrial Gazette;

AND WHEREAS no response was received from the applicant, and on 22 September 2025, the Commission wrote to the parties requesting unavailable dates for the listing of the Show Cause Hearing by 24 September 2025;

AND WHEREAS no response was received from the applicant, and on 24 September 2025, the Commission wrote to the parties and issued Notices of Hearing listing the Show Cause Hearing on Tuesday, 21 October 2025 at 10am. The Notices of Hearing state that the Commission may deal with the matter in a party’s absence if they do not attend the hearing. The Commission indicated that the Show Cause Hearing is listed for the applicant to show cause why the matter ought not be dismissed pursuant to s 27(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) for want of jurisdiction (i.e. because the Commission does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter). The Commission informed the applicant that if she does not attend the Show Cause Hearing that the Commission may issue an Order dismissing the matter for want of jurisdiction. The Commission indicated that the Order will outline the history and background of the matter, is a matter of public record and will be published on the Commission’s website and in the Industrial Gazette. The Commission informed the applicant that if she does not wish to pursue the matter, she can discontinue the matter, by filing a Form 1A – Discontinuance with the Commission’s Registry. The Commission noted that if the matter is discontinued prior to the Show Cause Hearing that the Show Cause Hearing will be vacated;

AND WHEREAS the applicant attended the Show Cause Hearing and maintained that her employer was Goldstar Assets Pty Ltd trading as Vault, acknowledged that as her employer was not a State system employer that the Commission does not have jurisdiction, and that there was no reason why the Commission should not issue an order dismissing the matter for want of jurisdiction;

NOW THEREFORE, having heard from the applicant, the Commission, pursuant to the powers conferred under the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA), hereby orders –

THAT application U 100 of 2025 is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Commissioner C Tsang