Haohan Qian v Grandmetro Constructions Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 737

[2025] FWC 737

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Haohan Qian
v

Grandmetro Constructions Pty Ltd

(U2024/11113)

COMMISSIONER MATHESON

SYDNEY, 28 APRIL 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – Compensation ordered

On 19 September 2024, Mr Haohan Qian (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 he had been unfairly dismissed from his employment with Grandmetro Constructions Pty Ltd (Respondent). While the Applicant’s application had originally indicated that he was seeking reinstatement during the hearing the Applicant confirmed that he did not wish to be reinstated and was seeking 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 Applicant, also known as ‘Hansen’, commenced employment with the Respondent on 22 June 2023[2] as a Junior Site Engineer.[3]
On 27 August 2024 the Applicant was working on a residential development project (Project).
On 27 August 2024, workers of one of the Respondent’s subcontractors, Otis Elevator Company Pty Ltd (Otis), found a large piece of debris in an elevator shaft and raised safety concerns with the Respondent.[4]
The Applicant was dismissed without notice on 31 August 2024[5] with the termination letter sent on that…

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 Haohan Qian v Grandmetro Constructions Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Haohan Qian v Grandmetro Constructions Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 737
Case: [2025] FWC 737
Decision Date: 28 APRIL 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

- Parties, nature of dispute, and court:
The case of Haohan Qian v Grandmetro Constructions Pty Ltd was heard by the Fair Work Commission in Sydney. The Applicant, Haohan Qian, alleged that he had been unfairly dismissed by the Respondent, Grandmetro Constructions Pty Ltd. The Applicant sought compensation for the unfair dismissal.

- Legal issues the court was required to decide:
The court had to determine whether Haohan Qian was protected from unfair dismissal, whether the dismissal was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code, whether it was a case of genuine redundancy, and whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The court also needed to consider if Haohan Qian was entitled to a remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009.

- Court's reasoning and outcome:
The court found that Haohan Qian was protected from unfair dismissal as he had completed the minimum employment period and his earnings were below the high income threshold. The dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code as the Respondent was not a small business employer. It was also not a case of genuine redundancy. The court concluded that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable due to the Respondent's deficiencies in training and supervision. As Haohan Qian did not wish to be reinstated, the court ordered compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

- Final orders:
The court ordered Grandmetro Constructions Pty Ltd to pay Haohan Qian compensation of $8,653.85 gross less taxation as required by law.

Orders