Catherine Pllu v Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 392

[2025] FWC 392

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Catherine Pllu
v

Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd

(U2024/10759)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAKE

BRISBANE, 3 MARCH 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – jurisdictional objection – resignation – jurisdictional objection upheld – matter dismissed.

Ms Catherine Pllu (the Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) seeking a remedy pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work 2009 (the Act) stating that she was unfairly dismissed from her employment with Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd (the Respondent) on 11 September 2024.

A conciliation was held on 27 November 2024 and the matter was not resolved. The matter was listed for a hearing on 9 December 2024. The Applicant was represented by her sister and the Respondent was represented by Mr Troy Spence of counsel. I granted permission for the Respondent to be represented under s.596 of the Act on the basis that there is a complex factual matrix.

At the start of the hearing, I exercised my power under s.586 of the Act to correct the name of the Respondent to “Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd” instead of “Gold Coast Private Hospital (Healthscope)”.

Section 396 of the Act requires satisfaction of four matters before considering the merits. I am satisfied that the Applicant made her application within the 21-day period required by s.394(2) of the Act and earned less than the high-income threshold. The Respondent raised a jurisdictional objection that the Applicant had resigned and was not dismissed. The jurisdictional objection will be considered before determining the merits of the matter.

Background

The Applicant commenced employment with the Respondent as a casual registered nurse in the Paediatric Care Centre at Gold Coast Private Hospital on 17 January 2022.

The Applicant was employed under the Healthscope – Queensland – Nurses and Midwives – Enterprise Agreement 2021 (The Agreement) and she was paid as a Registered Nurse (Level 1).

On 16 May 2022, the Applicant moved from casual employment to a permanent part-time employee, working 60 hours per fortnight as a registered nurse.[1]

In August 2022, the Applicant reduced her hours of work to 36 hours per fortnight. This was confirmed by the Respondent a change of employment letter dated 6 July 2022:

… Your status will be that of a part-time employee working 36 hours per fortnight in the position of registered nurse… Your salary will be paid at the nurse registered nurse level I year eight rate…[2]

In March 2023, the Applicant applied to work as a registered nurse in the day surgical centre.[3] The Applicant was unsuccessful in that application.[4] She continued to work in the Paediatric Care Centre.

The Applicant changed her hours again in June 2023.[5] The Applicant increased her hours of work to 48 hours per fortnight. This was confirmed in a change in terms of employment letter dated 18 May 2023 which included the following words.

…Your status will be that of a part-time employee, working 48-hour split…

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 Catherine Pllu v Healthscope Operations 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 392
Decision Date: 3 MARCH 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Catherine Pllu made an application to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging she was unfairly dismissed by Healthscope Operations Pty Ltd on 11 September 2024. The Commission must first determine whether the Applicant was dismissed under s.386 of the Act, before considering the merits of the matter. The Respondent raised a jurisdictional objection that the Applicant had resigned and was not dismissed. The Deputy President found that the Applicant's resignation was not forced by the conduct of the Respondent. The Applicant had predetermined in her mind the optimum outcome for herself and escalated the dispute by making an unfair dismissal application. The Applicant had failed to convince the Deputy President that the Respondent engaged in a course of conduct that forced the Applicant to resign in September 2024. The Applicant was not dismissed in accordance with s.386 of the Act. Therefore, the Applicant is not an employee who is a person protected from unfair dismissal and the Respondent's jurisdictional objection is upheld. The Application is dismissed.

Orders