Jonathan Mccosker v The Trustee for Albatross North Lakes Trust

[2025] FWC 3155

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jonathan Mccosker
v

The Trustee For Albatross North Lakes Trust

(U2025/3956)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON

BRISBANE, 21 OCTOBER 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

For reasons given in transcript, I have determined that the jurisdictional objection of genuine redundancy is dismissed on the basis that the Respondent failed to consult as required in the Amusement, Events and Recreation Award 2020.

I have weighed each of the considerations in s.387 of the Act and have determined the dismissal was unfair because of the failure to consult.

I have taken into account amounts paid to the Applicant on termination and determined not to award compensation for the reasons given in transcript.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

J McCoscker, Applicant
T Earls, Solicitor for the Respondent

Hearing details:

2025
Brisbane (by video using Microsoft Teams)
21 October

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jonathan McCosker lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission alleging that his dismissal from employment with The Trustee for Albatross North Lakes Trust was unfair. The Trustee argued that the dismissal was justified on the basis of genuine redundancy. The Commission was required to determine whether the dismissal was unfair under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and if so, whether to make an order for remedy.

The key legal issue before the Commission was whether the dismissal was unfair. This involved examining whether the dismissal complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act and whether the employer had followed proper consultation processes as stipulated by the relevant award. The Commission had to consider whether the employer, The Trustee for Albatross North Lakes Trust, had genuinely sought to make the Applicant redundant and whether it had appropriately consulted with the Applicant as required by the Amusement, Events and Recreation Award 2020. The Commission also needed to assess the overall fairness of the dismissal, including the consideration of s.387 of the Act, which lists factors to be taken into account in determining the fairness of a dismissal.

The Commission found that the employer had not complied with the consultation requirements as outlined in the relevant award, thereby failing to properly justify the redundancy. Consequently, the jurisdictional objection of genuine redundancy was dismissed. After evaluating the evidence and considering the relevant statutory provisions, the Commission determined that the dismissal was unfair. Although amounts were paid to the Applicant upon termination, the Commission decided not to award additional compensation, taking into account the reasons provided in the transcript.

The Commission ordered that the dismissal was unfair, and no additional compensation was awarded. The decision was made in light of the amounts already paid to the Applicant and the specific circumstances outlined in the transcript. The employer was required to comply with the order, and any further legal remedies were left to the discretion of the Applicant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established