//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2001] WAIRComm 1934
plaintiff. The Commission ordered that the applicant was unfairly dismissed, that reinstatement would be unavailing, and that the respondent pay the applicant $5,540.00 compensation.
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission found that Ray Bassin Hansen had been unfairly dismissed by Noongar Enterprise Aboriginal Corporation trading as Unity of First People of Australia. It considered reinstatement unavailing and ordered the respondent to pay $5,540.00 compensation. The respondent did not appear. The supplied text is an order rather than a reasoned judgment, so it does not explain the evidence, legal test, or calculation of compensation.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
1,340 words · generated 29/09/2026
The supplied decision is an order of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission in Ray Bassin Hansen v Noongar Enterprise Aboriginal Corporation trading as Unity of First People of Australia [2001] WAIRComm 1934. Commissioner J F Gregor delivered it on 31 January 2001 in Application 601 of 2000.
The parties were Ray Bassin Hansen, the applicant, and Noongar Enterprise Aboriginal Corporation trading as Unity of First People of Australia, the respondent. The order records that Mr G Patrick, counsel, appeared for the applicant, while there was “no appearance on behalf of the Respondent”.
The Commission made three operative determinations. First, “[t]he Applicant was unfairly dismissed.” Second, “[r]einstatement would be unavailing.” Third, the respondent was ordered to pay “the sum of $5,540.00 compensation.” The order says the Commission acted under powers conferred by the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA).
The text provided is brief and contains no numbered reasons or findings of fact beyond the operative outcome and the procedural information stated above. It does not describe the employment relationship, the circumstances of the dismissal, the applicant’s evidence, or the Commission’s assessment of that evidence. Accordingly, the result can be reported, but the reasoning behind it cannot be reconstructed from this text.
The order does not explain why the Commission found the dismissal unfair. It also does not state the legal test it applied, identify a particular provision of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA), or describe the conduct or events that led to dismissal. The finding of unfair dismissal is therefore clear as an outcome, but its legal and factual basis is not available in the supplied source.
The same limitation applies to remedy. The Commission stated that reinstatement “would be unavailing”, but did not explain what made reinstatement unavailing. The order does not say whether that conclusion related to the parties’ relationship, the availability of work, the passage of time, or another circumstance. Those possibilities should not be treated as findings: none appears in the provided text.
The Commission did order compensation of $5,540.00. However, it gives no calculation, assessment method, or explanation of the amount. The source therefore supports saying that compensation was awarded in that sum, but not why that particular figure was selected.
The respondent’s non-appearance is a relevant procedural fact expressly recorded in the order. The source does not say what evidence was presented, whether the applicant’s case was tested, or whether the respondent had been notified. No further procedural inference can safely be drawn from the absence of an appearance alone.
The supplied material does not set out the state of the law before or after this decision. It cites the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) as the source of the Commission’s powers, but identifies no section and does not reproduce any statutory language. It also cites no other judgments or legal authorities.
For that reason, this order cannot, on the supplied text alone, be used to state a legal test for unfair dismissal, explain how compensation should be calculated, or describe when reinstatement may be considered unavailing. Those subjects may be relevant to the result, but the order does not articulate rules about them.
Nor does the provided source establish whether later courts or tribunals followed, distinguished, or otherwise treated this decision. It gives no subsequent citation history. Any account of the decision’s later treatment would require sources beyond the text supplied here.
The narrow account that can be given is that, in this particular application, the Commission found the applicant had been unfairly dismissed and made a compensation order after concluding that reinstatement would be unavailing. The order does not state whether the Commission regarded the result as applying or developing a broader principle.
The order says: “The Applicant was unfairly dismissed.” In plain English, the Commission formally found that the dismissal was unfair. The order does not explain the test or reasons supporting that finding.
It says: “Reinstatement would be unavailing.” In plain English, the Commission decided that returning the applicant to the job would not provide an effective or useful remedy in this matter. The text does not explain why.
It orders: “The Respondent to pay the Applicant the sum of $5,540.00 compensation.” In plain English, the respondent was directed to pay the applicant compensation of $5,540.00. The order does not show how that amount was reached.
The introductory wording says the order is made “pursuant to the powers conferred on it under the Industrial Relations Act, 1979”. This identifies the Act as the source of the Commission’s authority, but the text does not identify a particular section or describe the limits or content of that authority.
The passages above are taken from the operative order. The supplied version has no numbered paragraphs, so paragraph references are unavailable.
The source does not provide enough factual detail to identify a fact pattern that would trigger a particular rule. It records an unfair dismissal application, the respondent’s non-appearance, the finding of unfair dismissal, the conclusion that reinstatement would be unavailing, and a compensation award. It does not describe the applicant’s role, the reason for dismissal, the process followed by the employer, the length of employment, any loss suffered, or the evidence relevant to remedy.
It is therefore possible to identify the subject matter of the decision, but not a detailed set of facts that another decision-maker could compare with a later dispute. The order does not say, for example, which features of this dismissal made it unfair or which circumstances made reinstatement unavailing. Treating any unstated circumstance as a feature of the precedent would go beyond the supplied text.
For legal research or case comparison, the documented points are limited to the identity of the parties, the application number, the hearing date, representation and non-appearance, and the three remedial and liability determinations. The factual basis for those determinations is absent from this source.
No later decisions are included in the supplied text, and the order contains no discussion of other cases. It is therefore not possible, using this source alone, to say whether later courts or tribunals applied, followed, distinguished, criticised, or otherwise treated this decision.
The case citation identifies the decision as [2001] WAIRComm 1934, with the citation line also giving [2001 WAIRC 01934]. That identification does not itself establish later precedential treatment. A conclusion about subsequent citations would require a separate source showing those citations and the relevant later courts’ reasoning.
The order also contains no express statement that it is setting out a general principle. It records the Commission’s determinations in this application. Any claim about its wider precedential weight would require more than the short order supplied here.
The main unresolved issue is the reasoning supporting the unfair dismissal finding. The order does not state the facts of the dismissal or the legal test applied. A fuller set of reasons, if one exists, would be needed to explain the Commission’s analysis.
A second open issue concerns reinstatement. The Commission said it would be unavailing, but the source does not explain the practical or legal basis for that conclusion. It also does not identify whether the applicant sought reinstatement or what evidence was considered on that question.
A third issue is the compensation calculation. The amount of $5,540.00 is clear, but the order does not explain its components, calculation method, or the material used to reach it.
Finally, the source does not establish the decision’s later treatment or broader legal significance. It contains no cited precedents, statutory sections, numbered paragraphs, or subsequent citation information. Any more detailed account should be grounded in the full reasons or other reliable legal sources, rather than inferred from the operative order.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before you act on this, rely on it, or use any draft, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.
NOONGAR ENTERPRISE ABORIGINAL CORPORATION TRADING AS UNITY OF FIRST PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA
CITATION NO. 2001 WAIRC 01934
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
HAVING heard Mr G Patrick (of Counsel) on behalf of the Applicant and there being no appearance on behalf of the Respondent, the Commission pursuant to the powers conferred on it under the Industrial Relations Act, 1979 hereby orders:
Ray Bassin Hansen
Noongar Enterprise Aboriginal Corporation trading as Unity of First People of Australia [2001] WAIRComm 1934
The Commission ordered that the applicant was unfairly dismissed, that reinstatement would be unavailing, and that the respondent pay the applicant $5,540.00 compensation.