Firas Raghib v Stantec Australia Pty Ltd - [2025] FWCFB 218

[2025] FWCFB 218

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.604—Appeal of decision

Firas Raghib
v

Stantec Australia Pty Ltd

(C2025/8312)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SLEVIN
COMMISSIONER CRAWFORD

MELBOURNE, 24 SEPTEMBER 2025

Appeal against decision [2025] FWC 2335 of Deputy President Masson at Melbourne on 13 August 2025 in matter number U2025/3948 – permission to appeal refused

Firas Raghib has lodged an appeal under s 604 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) against a decision of Deputy President Masson issued on 13 August 2025 ([2025] FWC 2335) which dismissed Mr Raghib’s application for an unfair dismissal remedy. The matter was listed for permission to appeal only. The parties consented to the Full Bench determining the matter without holding a hearing, and we are satisfied that it can be adequately determined without the parties making oral submissions (see s 607(1) of the Act).

In order for a person to have been unfairly dismissed, the Commission must be satisfied that the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Section 387 requires the Commission, in considering whether it is so satisfied, to take into account the matters in ss 387(a) to (h). The Deputy President found that the respondent, Stantec Australia Pty Ltd, had two valid reasons to dismiss Mr Raghib (s 387(a)). First, the Deputy President found that Mr Raghib inappropriately sought to contact a female coworker who had made a complaint of sexual harassment against him. Secondly, the Deputy President found that Mr Raghib had cynically fabricated a text message from the complainant to himself for the purpose of discrediting her. The Deputy President made credit findings against Mr Raghib, stating that he regarded Mr Raghib as dishonest and untrustworthy. The Deputy President further found that Mr Raghib’s conduct amounted to serious misconduct, and that the valid reasons for dismissal weighed in favour of a finding that the dismissal was not unfair.

In respect of the other mandatory considerations in s 387, the Deputy President found that Mr Raghib had not been notified of the valid reasons for his dismissal (s 387(b)) or given an opportunity to respond to them (s 387(c)), and that these matters weighed in favour of a conclusion that the dismissal was unfair. The Deputy President found that there had been no refusal by the employer to allow a support person to be present at discussions relating to dismissal (s 387(d)), which favoured a conclusion that the dismissal was not unfair. He found that the consideration in s 387(e), which relates to warnings for poor performance, was not relevant, and that the matters in ss 387(f) and (g), which concern the size of the respondent’s enterprise and the availability of human resources specialists, were neutral factors. The Deputy President made findings about various matters said by Mr Raghib to be other relevant considerations under s 387(h), including that Mr Raghib’s claims of bullying and misconduct by senior staff were no more than unsupported allegations, and concluded that none of the matters raised by…

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 Firas Raghib v Stantec Australia 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] FWCFB 218
Decision Date: 24 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Firas Raghib v Stantec Australia Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission Full Bench was called upon to determine whether the appellant, Mr Raghib, should be granted permission to appeal a decision of the Deputy President dismissing his application for unfair dismissal remedy. The Full Bench was satisfied that the matter could be determined without a hearing due to the consent of the parties and the nature of the appeal grounds. The primary legal issue before the Full Bench was whether the Deputy President's decision dismissing Mr Raghib's unfair dismissal claim was subject to a significant error of fact, warranting an appeal under section 604 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Full Bench examined each of the seven grounds of appeal presented by Mr Raghib. They found that the Deputy President's factual findings, including that Mr Raghib had fabricated a text message and engaged in serious misconduct, were carefully reasoned and supported by the evidence. The Full Bench held that Mr Raghib had not demonstrated that the Deputy President had made a significant error of fact, as required by section 400(2) of the Act. Furthermore, the Full Bench concluded that the appeal did not raise matters of public interest or general application that would warrant granting permission to appeal. The Full Bench determined that the grounds of appeal did not disclose an arguable case of appealable error, and that it was not in the public interest to grant permission to appeal. Therefore, permission to appeal the Deputy President's decision was refused.

Orders