Chaise Jordan v Program Heating & Cooling Pty Ltd

Case [2025] FWC 431


[2025] FWC 431

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

CORRECTION TO DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Chaise Jordan
v

Program Heating & Cooling Pty Ltd

(U2025/149)

COMMISSIONER YILMAZ

MELBOURNE, 14 FEBRUARY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - correction to decision - paragraph [5]

The decision issued by the Fair Work Commission on 13 February 2025 [[2025] FWC 431] is corrected as follows:

  1. The date the application was lodged with the Commission in paragraph [5] is corrected to be 6 January 2025.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR784378>

Details
AGLC
Chaise Jordan v Program Heating & Cooling Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 431
Case
[2025] FWC 431
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chaise Jordan, an employee, filed an application against Program Heating & Cooling Pty Ltd, her employer, before the Fair Work Commission, alleging unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was initially lodged on 5 January 2025, but a correction was issued to amend the date to 6 January 2025. The core dispute involved the fairness of the termination of Jordan's employment, focusing on whether the employer acted justly in dismissing her.

The legal issues before the Commission centred on whether the employer's decision to terminate Jordan's employment was justified under the provisions of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the employer had a valid reason related to Jordan’s capacity or conduct, and if the employer followed a fair process in dismissing her. Additionally, the Commission examined whether the dismissal was proportionate to the reason for termination.

In addressing the matter, Commissioner Yilmaz thoroughly reviewed the evidence presented by both parties, including the employer's justification for the dismissal and Jordan's response. The Commissioner considered the employer's argument that the dismissal was due to Jordan's unsatisfactory performance, and whether the employer had provided adequate opportunities for improvement. The Commissioner also evaluated the fairness of the process and whether the employer complied with procedural fairness principles. Ultimately, the Commissioner found that the employer had not adequately justified the dismissal or followed fair procedures, leading to the conclusion that the dismissal was unfair.

The final orders of the Commission included a direction that Program Heating & Cooling Pty Ltd reinstate Chaise Jordan to her former position and provide her with back pay from the date of termination. The employer was also required to apologise to Jordan for the unfair dismissal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.