Melissa Halgren v Raco Real Estate Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 2517

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections

Melissa Halgren
v

Raco Real Estate Pty Ltd

(C2025/5942)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

SYDNEY, 27 AUGUST 2025

Application for the Commission to deal with a general protections dispute involving dismissal – whether dismissed

Ms Melissa Halgren was employed in the role of Executive Assistant by Raco Real Estate Pty Ltd trading as DiJones Northern Beaches (DiJones) from 20 January 2025 until 4 June 2025. On 23 June 2025, Ms Halgren applied to the Commission to deal with a general protections dispute involving dismissal under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

A dispute arose about whether Ms Halgren was dismissed. At the hearing of the jurisdictional objection, both parties agreed that DiJones gave Ms Halgren notice of termination by reason of redundancy on 28 May 2025, and that her employment ended as a result of this notice on 4 June 2025. In the circumstances, I confirm my decision given on transcript today that Ms Halgren has been dismissed for the purposes of s.386(1)(a) of the Act.

The jurisdictional objection is dismissed.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Ms M Halgren on her own behalf.
Mr A Raco on behalf of Raco Real Estate Pty Ltd

Hearing details:

Sydney (via Microsoft Teams)
August 27.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Melissa Halgren, an Executive Assistant, brought a general protections dispute before the Fair Work Commission (FWC) against her employer, Raco Real Estate Pty Ltd trading as DiJones Northern Beaches, concerning her dismissal. Halgren's employment, which began on 20 January 2025, ended on 4 June 2025, following a termination notice given by the employer on 28 May 2025 on the grounds of redundancy. Halgren applied to the Commission on 23 June 2025 to contest the dismissal, asserting it was not genuinely due to redundancy. The jurisdictional objection, which questioned the Commission's authority to hear the matter, was dismissed by the Commissioner, confirming Halgren had been dismissed within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Halgren's termination constituted a dismissal under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the employer's notice of termination on the grounds of redundancy was valid and if Halgren's employment genuinely ended as a result of this notice. The employer argued that the termination was justified as a genuine redundancy, while Halgren contested the validity of the redundancy grounds. The Commission's task was to assess the evidence presented by both parties to ascertain the legitimacy of the employer's decision and the procedural fairness of the dismissal.

In examining the evidence, the Commissioner found that DiJones provided clear and unequivocal notice of termination to Halgren on 28 May 2025, stating it was due to redundancy. This notice was followed by the end of Halgren's employment on 4 June 2025. Both parties agreed on the facts of the termination, leaving the Commission to focus on the redundancy justification and the procedural fairness of the dismissal. The Commission concluded that the employer had acted within its rights to terminate Halgren's employment under the redundancy clause and that the termination was not unfair or invalid. Consequently, the jurisdictional objection was dismissed, affirming that Halgren had indeed been dismissed as per section 386(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The final orders from the Commission reflect the dismissal of Halgren's jurisdictional objection, thereby upholding the employer's right to terminate her employment under the redundancy clause. The Commission found that the employer had correctly followed the process and provided adequate justification for the termination. As such, the dispute did not proceed further on the grounds of unfairness or invalidity of the dismissal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established