Bartolome Durado and Delo Be Isugan v Foot and Thai Massage Pty Ltd

In the matter of Bartolome Durado and Delo Be Isugan v Foot and Thai Massage Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was called upon to address applications for relief from unfair dismissal made by the respondents against the applicant employer. The respondents, Bartolome Durado and Delo Be Isugan, alleged that they had been dismissed without just cause or excuse and sought various remedies, including reinstatement and compensation. The employer contested these claims, arguing that the dismissals were fair and justified.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the dismissals of the respondents were unfair within the meaning of the Fair Work Act. The Commission needed to determine whether the dismissals occurred for reasons unrelated to the respondents' performance or conduct, and whether the employer had followed a fair process in making the decision to dismiss. Additionally, the Commission had to assess whether the dismissals were harsh, unjust, or unreasonable and determine if any remedy was appropriate under the circumstances.

The Fair Work Commission found that the respondents had indeed been dismissed and that their dismissals were harsh, unjust, and unreasonable. Specifically, the Commission held that the employer had not provided adequate reasons for the dismissals and that the process leading to the dismissals was unfair. With respect to Mr Durado, the Commission determined that his dismissal was unjust and unreasonable but did not find reinstatement to be an appropriate remedy. The Commission concluded that compensation was the appropriate remedy for both respondents, taking into account the particular circumstances of each case. As a result, the Commission ordered the employer to pay compensation to both Bartolome Durado and Delo Be Isugan.