Hanna Wittner v Glad Security Pty. Ltd - [2025] FWC 676

[2025] FWC 676

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Hanna Wittner
v

Glad Security Pty. Ltd

(U2024/1682)

COMMISSIONER MATHESON

SYDNEY, 6 MARCH 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

Hanna Wittner (Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) for a remedy, alleging that she had been unfairly dismissed from her employment with Glad Security Pty. Ltd (Respondent). The Applicant seeks reinstatement or, in the alternative, compensation.[1]

When can the Commission order a remedy for unfair dismissal?

Section 390 of the FW Act provides that the Commission may order a remedy if:

(a) the Commission is satisfied that the Applicant was protected from unfair dismissal at the time of being dismissed; and

(b) the Applicant has been unfairly dismissed.

Both limbs must be satisfied. I am therefore required to consider whether the Applicant was protected from unfair dismissal at the time of being dismissed and, if I am satisfied that the Applicant was so protected, whether the Applicant has been unfairly dismissed.

When is a person protected from unfair dismissal?

Section 382 of the FW Act provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if, at the time of being dismissed:

(a) the person is an employee who has completed a period of employment with his or her employer of at least the minimum employment period; and

(b) one or more of the following apply:

(i)a modern award covers the person;
(ii)an enterprise agreement applies to the person in relation to the employment;
(iii)the sum of the person’s annual rate of earnings, and such other amounts (if any) worked out in relation to the person in accordance with the regulations, is less than the high income threshold.

When has a person been unfairly dismissed?

Section 385 of the FW Act provides that a person has been unfairly dismissed if the Commission is satisfied that:

(a) the person has been dismissed; and

(b) the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; and

(c) the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code; and

(d) the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.

Background

The uncontested factual background to the matter is as follows:

The Respondent is a part of the Glad Group[2] and provides cleaning, security, guest and maintenance services to the clients under contractual arrangements, including the Queensland Investment Corporation (Client) which is a Queensland Government owned entity and the owner of Eastland Shopping Centre in Victoria (Shopping Centre).[3]
The Respondent has a contract with the Client (Services Contract) and employs employees to carry out services at the Shopping Centre for the Client.
The Applicant commenced working for the Respondent in late March 2023 in a guest services role (Role) at the Shopping Centre.[4]
The Role involved the Applicant working at the information desk at the Shopping Centre by assisting customers, managing enquiries,…

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 Hanna Wittner v Glad Security 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 676
Decision Date: 6 MARCH 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Hanna Wittner, made an application to the Fair Work Commission under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a remedy, alleging that she had been unfairly dismissed from her employment with Glad Security Pty Ltd. The applicant seeks reinstatement or, in the alternative, compensation. The Fair Work Commission must consider whether the applicant was protected from unfair dismissal at the time of being dismissed and, if so, whether the applicant has been unfairly dismissed. The Commission found that the applicant was protected from unfair dismissal at the time of dismissal. The Commission found that the applicant had been dismissed. The Commission was not satisfied that the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable and dismissed the application. The applicant had accepted a voucher believing it was a free sample, with no intent to steal it. She was questioned by three senior managers about this without prior notice or time to prepare and was not given a fair chance to explain or resolve the situation. The respondent escalated the situation prematurely to human resources. This created a false impression that led to the client requesting the applicant’s removal from site. While human resources cleared her of wrongdoing, she was still terminated. The Commission found that there was a valid reason for the dismissal. The Commission found that the applicant was not notified of the valid reason for her dismissal or given an opportunity to respond to the valid reason before the decision to terminate her employment was made. The Commission found that the employer did not unreasonably refuse to allow the applicant to have a support person present to assist at discussions relating to the dismissal. The Commission was satisfied that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

Orders