Fair Work Commission|2025-06-26

For the reasons above I find that Mr Maslan's dismissal does not fall within the definition of a genuine redundancy in the Act because of the failure of Escada to comply with its obligations to consult over proposed terminations arising from changes at the workplace.

I also find that the termination of his employment is not harsh, unjust or unreasonable as the decision was the result of a soundly based business decision to restructure the operations and merge two positions. The failure to consult did not lead to a different conclusion to that which would have, in all likelihood, been reached had consultation occurred. Therefore this failure does not render the dismissal unfair. The application is dismissed."[7]

[33] Having considered the material before me, and the circumstances of this matter, I am not satisfied that the deficiencies outlined, although not ideal, had any notable influence on the inevitable outcome of the matter. Had a more careful consultation been undertaken it would have been highly unlikely to negate the reasons for and outcome of the dismissal.

[34] The circumstances that resulted in the dismissal of Ms Gallina are unfortunate. Ms Gallina was a casual employee whose hours were at the mercy of the overall operational requirements of the Respondent's business. And, unfortunately, the Respondent suffered a significant operational downturn which resulted in a genuine commercial need to reduce staff and hours. On the evidence before the Commission, Ms Gallina was not unfairly targeted by the Respondent during this process. Had a flawless process been executed in the lead up to the dismissal of Ms Gallina, there would have been no substantive change to the unfortunate outcome of the circumstances.

[35] Having considered the matters in section 387 of the Act, I have determined that the dismissal of Ms Gallina was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. It was therefore not unfair.

[36] Accordingly, the application is dismissed, an Order to that effect is issued.[8]

[2] Direction 107 - Order for considering and disposing of Student Guardian visa applications and offshore Subclass 500 (Student) visa applications.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Valentina Gallina v Sunset Coast International English School Pty Ltd Trading AS Lexis English [2025] FWC 1831 (26 June 2025)

Valentina Gallina v Sunset Coast International English School Pty Ltd Trading AS Lexis English [2025] FWC 1831

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (15 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (1)

Valentina Gallina v Sunset Coast International English School Pty Ltd Trading AS Lexis English [2025] FWC 1831 (26 June 2025)