Appeal against decision [2025] FWC 670 and order PR785007 of Commissioner Schneider at Perth on 6 March in matter number U2024/9905 – extension of time to file appeal not required – permission to appeal refused.

Mr Eduardo Dias Madureira has lodged an appeal under s 604 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) against a decision[1] and order[2] of Commissioner Schneider issued on 6 March 2025. The decision relates to an unfair dismissal application made by Mr Madureira against the respondent, ISS Security Pty Limited. In the decision, the Commissioner determined that Mr Madureira was not dismissed by the respondent but voluntarily resigned.

Mr Madureira seeks to challenge this conclusion in the appeal. The parties consented to the application being determined without holding a hearing pursuant to s 607(1)(b) of the Act. We are satisfied that the question of permission to appeal can be adequately determined without the need for oral submissions.

The Commission recorded the appeal as having been lodged outside the 21-day period prescribed by rule 128(2) of the Fair Work Commission Rules 2024, at 2:53am (AEDT) on 28 February 2025. Mr Madureira’s position is that his notice of appeal was lodged on 27 February 2025. Having regard to Mr Madureira’s submissions and supporting material, we accept that the notice of appeal was emailed by Mr Madureira and received in the Perth registry at 11:53pm on 27 February 2025. Consistent with s 37 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) (which provides for the application of “local time”[3]) and s 585 of the Act (which requires applications to be in accordance with the procedural rules) we are satisfied that Mr Madureira lodged the appeal within time and an extension of time is not required.

For the reasons that follow, permission to appeal is refused.

Decision under appeal

Mr Madureira was employed by the respondent as an Aviation Protection Officer. On 22 July 2024, Mr Madureira sent a written resignation to the respondent, relevantly stating the following:

Please accept this as notice of my resignation from the position of Aviation Protection Officer at ISS Facility Services Australia Ltd. Since my notice period is 2 weeks, I believe my last day will be 04/08/2024.

Before the Commissioner, Mr Madureira relied upon three events that he says led to his resignation. On 19 November 2023, Mr Madureira says he was harassed and coerced to perform alternative duties by his supervisor; on 20 January 2024 Mr Madureira says he was harassed by his supervisor in relation to his heritage; and on 4 February 2024 Mr Madureira says that the conduct of the service duty manager was unreasonable and left him feeling shocked and disturbed.

The Commissioner considered Mr Madureira’s argument that he had been forced to resign from his employment, such that the resignation amounted to a…

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.

Continue reading Eduardo Dias Madureira v ISS Security Pty Limited

Details

AGLC: Eduardo Dias Madureira v ISS Security Pty Limited [2025] FWCFB 105
Case: [2025] FWCFB 105
Decision Date: 21 MAY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Eduardo Dias Madureira v ISS Security Pty Limited, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with considering an appeal against a decision and order issued by Commissioner Schneider on 6 March 2025. Mr Madureira had filed an appeal against a determination that he was not dismissed but had voluntarily resigned from his position as an Aviation Protection Officer with ISS Security Pty Limited. The central issue before the Commission was whether Mr Madureira's appeal against the Commissioner's findings should be granted permission to proceed, particularly in light of the strict public interest criteria set out in section 400 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues primarily revolved around whether the appeal presented a significant error of fact warranting permission under the stringent public interest test. Mr Madureira argued that the Commissioner made several factual errors, including the omission of his complaints about harassment and bullying, and misrepresented the timeline of his requests for full-time employment. The Commission had to determine if these alleged errors were significant and if granting permission to appeal would serve the public interest. The Commission found that the grounds for appeal did not establish a significant error of fact or any broader issue of principle or law. The factual findings of the Commissioner were consistent with the evidence presented, and no injustice was evident from the decision.

The reasoning of the Commission was grounded in the statutory requirement that permission to appeal must serve the public interest, which is a high threshold. The Commission examined the grounds of appeal and found that they did not meet the stringent criteria for an arguable case of appealable error. Notably, the Commission concluded that Mr Madureira’s contentions about the Commissioner's factual errors were not supported by the evidence or the law, and thus, permission to appeal was rightly refused. The decision was consistent with the principles established in previous cases, emphasizing that an appeal is not granted merely because a party disagrees with the outcome or identifies potential errors. The Commission upheld the Commissioner's findings, stating that the appeal did not meet the necessary public interest criteria.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission refused permission to appeal the decision and order of Commissioner Schneider, finding that the grounds of appeal did not disclose any significant error of fact or broader issues of principle. The Commission's decision aligns with established legal principles regarding the stringent requirements for granting permission to appeal under the Fair Work Act.

Orders