Dianne Ferrara v Melbourne Archdiocese Catholic Schools Ltd

[2025] FWC 2710

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Dianne Ferrara
v

Melbourne Archdiocese Catholic Schools Ltd

(C2025/5892)

COMMISSIONER MIRABELLA

MELBOURNE, 11 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – Jurisdictional objection – Not dismissed

For the reasons given on transcript earlier today, I found that the Applicant was not an employee of the Respondent, and it follows that she was not dismissed within the meaning of s.386(1).

As Ms Ferrara has not been “dismissed”, a jurisdictional prerequisite required for a general protections application under s.365 of the Act, the Commission is not able to proceed further with the application or exercise any powers conferred by s.369. The jurisdictional objection is upheld and the application is dismissed.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Ms D. Ferrara, the Applicant

Mr P. Diluvio, Employee Relations Manager, representing the Respondent

Hearing details:

2025
11 September
Via Microsoft Teams Video

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dianne Ferrara lodged an application under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking to address contraventions involving dismissal against Melbourne Archdiocese Catholic Schools Ltd. The matter was heard by Commissioner Mirabella in the Fair Work Commission, with Ms Ferrara appearing pro se, and Mr P. Diluvio representing the Respondent. The primary contention was whether Ms Ferrara had been dismissed by the Respondent, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite for a general protections application under section 365 of the Act.

The legal issues at the core of the dispute were whether Ms Ferrara had been dismissed by the Respondent and whether the Commission had the requisite jurisdiction to proceed with the application. The Applicant argued that she had been dismissed, while the Respondent contended that she was not an employee and thus had not been dismissed. The central issue was to determine the employment status of Ms Ferrara and whether she was indeed dismissed by the Respondent.

Commissioner Mirabella examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The Commissioner found that Ms Ferrara was not an employee of the Respondent, a critical determination that negated the possibility of a dismissal under section 386(1) of the Act. Given that Ms Ferrara had not been "dismissed," the Commission lacked the jurisdictional authority to proceed with the application. Consequently, the jurisdictional objection was upheld, and the application was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established