Ayva Armstrong v Ayuda Healthcare Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 1328

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Ayva Armstrong
v

Ayuda Healthcare Pty Ltd

(C2025/2782)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN

MELBOURNE, 13 MAY 2025

Objection to s 365 application – jurisdictional objection dismissed

Earlier today I dismissed a jurisdictional objection to an application made by Ayva Armstrong (applicant) under s 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). The respondent, Ayuda Healthcare Pty Ltd, contended that it did not dismiss the applicant, and that it had merely temporarily suspended her from the casual roster pending an investigation into her performance. The applicant said that the company’s service manager told her that she had been taken off the roster, and also that she was no longer required. I accepted the applicant’s account of this conversation and concluded that the applicant had been dismissed by the respondent. Having dismissed the jurisdictional objection, I then conducted a conference to deal with the matter as required by s 368(1) and the matter was resolved.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

O. Baits for the applicant
C. Holt for the respondent

Hearing details:

2025
Melbourne (by telephone)
13 May

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ayva Armstrong brought a general protections claim against Ayuda Healthcare Pty Ltd, under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging she had been dismissed. The respondent company argued that it had not dismissed Armstrong, but had only suspended her from the casual roster pending an investigation into her performance. Armstrong claimed that the company’s service manager told her she had been removed from the roster and was no longer needed. The Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission, Colman, was tasked with resolving the jurisdictional objection raised by Ayuda Healthcare Pty Ltd.

The central legal issue was whether Armstrong had indeed been dismissed by Ayuda Healthcare Pty Ltd, as she alleged, or whether she had merely been suspended pending an investigation. The respondent argued that since Armstrong was not removed from her employment entirely, she had not been dismissed, but only suspended. Armstrong, on the other hand, argued that the conversation with the service manager constituted a dismissal. The court had to determine the veracity of Armstrong's account and whether it amounted to a dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Deputy President dismissed the jurisdictional objection brought by Ayuda Healthcare Pty Ltd. The court accepted Armstrong's account that she was informed by the service manager that she had been removed from the roster and was no longer required. This constituted a dismissal under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009. As a result, the matter was resolved through a conference between the parties, as required by section 368(1) of the Act. The jurisdictional objection was dismissed, and the matter proceeded to resolution.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established