Candice Dias v Angle Auto Finance Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 47

[2025] FWC 47

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Candice Dias
v

Angle Auto Finance Pty Ltd

(U2024/2463)

COMMISSIONER MATHESON

SYDNEY, 10 JANUARY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – performance improvement plans – valid reason for the Applicant’s dismissal based on her conduct, failure to comply with multiple lawful and reasonable directions – application dismissed.

On 5 March 2024 Candice Dias (Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) for a remedy, alleging that she had been unfairly dismissed from her employment with Angle Auto Finance Pty Ltd (Respondent). The Applicant seeks reinstatement and ‘orders for continuity and lost remuneration’.[1]

When can the Commission order a remedy for unfair dismissal?

Section 390 of the FW Act provides that the Commission may order a remedy if:

(a) the Commission is satisfied that the Applicant was protected from unfair dismissal at the time of being dismissed; and

(b) the Applicant has been unfairly dismissed.

Both limbs must be satisfied. I am therefore required to consider whether the Applicant was protected from unfair dismissal at the time of being dismissed and, if I am satisfied that the Applicant was so protected, whether the Applicant has been unfairly dismissed.

When is a person protected from unfair dismissal?

Section 382 of the FW Act provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if, at the time of being dismissed:

(a) the person is an employee who has completed a period of employment with his or her employer of at least the minimum employment period; and

(b) one or more of the following apply:

(i)a modern award covers the person;
(ii)an enterprise agreement applies to the person in relation to the employment;
(iii)the sum of the person’s annual rate of earnings, and such other amounts (if any) worked out in relation to the person in accordance with the regulations, is less than the high income threshold.

When has a person been unfairly dismissed?

Section 385 of the FW Act provides that a person has been unfairly dismissed if the Commission is satisfied that:

(a) the person has been dismissed; and

(b) the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; and

(c) the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code; and

(d) the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.

Background

The materials filed by both parties in this matter are extensive and canvas many issues, a significant number of which are in contest. Notwithstanding this, the following chronology of events surrounding the dismissal, while not an exhaustive account of all relevant events, does not appear to be in contest:

The Applicant commenced employment with the Respondent on 29 November 2021.[2]
The Applicant was initially employed as a Proof of Income Officer before transferring to the role of Settlements Officer.[3]
In October 2022 Shayan Ahmed (Mr Ahmed) joined the Applicant’s team as her…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Candice Dias v Angle Auto Finance Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FWC 47
Decision Date: 10 JANUARY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Candice Dias applied to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging she had been unfairly dismissed from her employment with Angle Auto Finance Pty Ltd. The central issue was whether the dismissal was unfair because it was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The Commission found that the dismissal was not unfair because there was a valid reason for the Applicant’s dismissal, specifically her conduct, including failure to comply with multiple lawful and reasonable directions to work only within her rostered hours. The Applicant's failure to adhere to these directions, despite being clearly communicated and justified on health, fairness, and performance accuracy grounds, constituted a valid reason for dismissal. The Applicant was notified of the allegations and had an opportunity to respond, but her conduct during the performance improvement process indicated she was unlikely to participate constructively in the Respondent’s performance and disciplinary processes. The relationship had become unsustainable, leading to the dismissal. The application was dismissed.

Orders