s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Stantins Financial Services Pty Ltd (Second Respondent)

Fifteen Years Holding Pty Ltd (Third Respondent)

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy; applications against multiple Respondents; dispute as to identity of employer; application opposed on the basis of high income threshold; objections withdrawn.

• [1] Ms Vikki Tsalamandris has filed applications pursuant to s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) seeking a remedy from the Fair Work Commission in relation to unfair dismissal. The applications are directed against:
  1. Stantin Partners Pty Ltd (the First Respondent)
  2. Stantins Financial Services Pty Ltd (the Second Respondent)
  3. Fifteen Years Holding Pty Ltd (the Third Respondent).
• [2] The Respondents objected to the applications on the basis they dispute Ms Tsalamandris was an employee of the First and Second Respondents, and assert that her employer was the Third Respondent, and further, assert that Ms Tsalamndris is not a person protected from unfair dismissal, because the sum of her annual rate of earnings, and such other amounts as should be counted is not less than the high income threshold[1]. Ms Tsalamndris asserts that the First Respondent was her employer at the time of her dismissal, but, as I understand it, filed applications against the Second and Third Respondents in anticipation of a dispute about this matter. She also denies that she did not earn less than the high income threshold. Ms Tsalamndris concedes that if I determine that the First Respondent was her employer at the time of her dismissal (as she contends) her applications against the Second and Third Respondents should be dismissed.
• [3] After the parties filed and served material in relation to the matter, I conducted a hearing on 5 December 2025 to determine the objections. Ms Tsalamndris was granted permission to be represented by a lawyer pursuant to s 596 of the Act, and Ms Brown of Counsel, instructed by Mr Rudaizky appeared at the hearing. Mr Spiros Livadaras and Mr Kostas Livadaras appeared for the Respondents.
• [4] At the commencement of the hearing, it was proposed that the matter be the subject of a member assisted conciliation conference, and both parties agreed that this should occur. During the course of the conference, the Respondents confirmed that they no longer assert that the First Respondent was not Ms Tsalamndris' employer at the time of her dismissal for the purposes of part 3-2 of the Act and agree that it was. It has also withdrawn its objection that Ms Tsalamndris is not a person protected from unfair dismissal, because the sum of her annual rate of earnings, and such other amounts as should be counted is not less than the high income threshold.
• [5] Accordingly, as I determined on transcript:
  1. It will now be necessary to hear and determine the merits of the application made by Ms Tsalamndris against the First Respondent, Stantin Partners Pty Ltd. Directions have been made (and will be confirmed in writing) as to how this will occur.
  2. The application against the Second Respondent is dismissed
  3. The application against the Third Respondent is dismissed.

[1] Fair Work Act 2009 s 382(b)(iii)

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer