Ajuni Chahal v Health Care Providers Association Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 2779

[2025] FWC 2779

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Ajuni Chahal
v

Health Care Providers Association Pty Ltd

(U2025/11545)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON SYDNEY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – whether application filed out of time – jurisdictional objection dismissed

1. Ms Ajuni Chahal was employed as a Consultant by Health Care Providers Association Pty Ltd (HCPA) from 3 June 2024 until 20 June 2025. On 11 July 2025, Ms Chahal applied for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

1. Section 394(2) of the Act requires an application for an unfair dismissal remedy to be made within 21 days after the dismissal took effect, or within such further period as the Commission allows under s 394(3). There is a dispute about whether Ms Chahal was dismissed on 19, 20 or 22 June 2025. If the dismissal took effect on 19 June 2025, the application is one day late. HCPA submits that the dismissal was effective on 19 June 2025. Ms Chahal says the dismissal took effect either on 20 June 2025 (when she was sent a formal letter of termination by email) or 22 June 2025 (when she read the email after getting off an aeroplane at the start of a four-week overseas holiday). The letter of termination ‘confirms’ the date of termination as 19 June 2025.

1. It is agreed that on 19 June 2025, Ms Chahal was told that her position was being made redundant by HCPA’s then General Manager (now Director), Ms Brooke Wilson. They discussed the issue of compensation, and Ms Wilson said she would do her best to provide additional pay for Ms Chahal. However, Ms Chahal says the actual date of termination was not made clear to her in the conversation on 19 June 2025 and that she only knew that the dismissal had taken effect on 22 June 2025, when she received the letter of termination and then tried to access HCPS’s Slack messaging system but could not get in.

1. I prefer the evidence of Ms Chahal over the evidence of Ms Wilson in relation to whether the date of termination was made clear to Ms Chahal in their conversation on 19 June 2025. Despite their different evidence on the point, my conclusion is that what Ms Wilson thought was made clear to Ms Chahal was not made clear in fact. I accept that Ms Chahal knew her position was to be made redundant, but not that she knew it was going to happen straight away. The position was only confirmed by notice in writing to Ms Chahal the following day.

1. I find that Ms Chahal was dismissed by HCPA on 20 June 2025 when the letter of termination was sent to her email address on HCPA’s file. The dismissal took effect immediately on that day.

1. It follows that the application for an unfair dismissal remedy was made in time.

1. The jurisdictional objection in relation to extension of time is dismissed.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Ms A Chahal on her own behalf.
Mr K Boden of Starnet Legal on behalf of the Respondent.

Hearing details:

Sydney (via Microsoft Teams)
September 17.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR791825>