Fair Work Act 2009

s.365 - General protections

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal - whether 'dismissed'

[1] Ms Kirsten Kae Beck was employed by Recording Oasis Pty Ltd trading as Gold Coast Plastic Surgery (GCPS) from on or about 26 February 2024 until 1 August 2025. Ms Beck says she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and that the dismissal was unlawful because it was motivated by reasons related to her pregnancy. GCPS agrees that Ms Beck was made redundant but says she was not dismissed. It says after notice of redundancy was given, Ms Beck was offered and accepted a casual part-time role (the jurisdictional objection). It is not in dispute that Ms Beck decided not to proceed with the casual role before it commenced. GCPS denies any disability or pregnancy discrimination in relation to the alleged dismissal of Ms Beck.

[2] On 18 August 2025, Ms Beck applied for the Commission to deal with a general protections dispute involving dismissal under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). The question is whether Ms Beck has been dismissed. At a hearing today, I found that Ms Beck has been dismissed.

[3] My reasons were shortly stated. Both parties agree that Ms Beck's full-time role as Digital Marketing Manager was made redundant by GCPS. It is also not in dispute that Ms Beck no longer held the role of Digital Marketing Manager after 1 August 2025 when her notice of termination took effect. The separate offer of casual employment, which was accepted by Ms Beck before she decided not to proceed with that offer, is a distraction. Her employment on a casual basis, which would have been comprised of a series of separate contracts of employment commencing on 6 August 2025, never commenced. Ms Beck was dismissed from the role of Digital Marketing Manager, and it is that dismissal which is the subject of this application. It is not necessary to deal with separate submissions in relation to whether there was a repudiation of Ms Beck's contract, or whether Ms Beck resigned, or was forced to do so.

[4] The jurisdictional objection is dismissed.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer