Mr Duncan Bruce v Liquorland (Australia) Pty. Ltd

[2025] FWC 1943

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365 - Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

Mr Duncan Bruce
v

Liquorland (Australia) Pty. Ltd.

(C2025/2995)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON

MELBOURNE, 8 JULY 2025

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal - jurisdictional objection - whether Applicant dismissed - jurisdictional objection upheld - found that Applicant was not dismissed within the meaning of s 386(1) of the Fair Work Act.

This decision concerns an application made by Duncan Bruce (the Applicant) on 11 April 2025 in which he asserts that the termination of his employment on 22 March 2025 by Liquorland (Australia) Pty. Ltd. (the Respondent) contravened his workplace rights. The Respondent raised a jurisdictional objection that the Applicant was not dismissed within the meaning of s 386 of the Act in its Form F8A response.

The Respondent’s jurisdictional objection is significant because the Applicant must have been dismissed in order to make a general protections dismissal dispute application.[1] Where there is a dispute about whether a person was dismissed, the Commission must determine that point before exercising its powers under s 368 of the Act.[2] Consequently, the issue for determination is whether the Applicant was dismissed from his employment within the meaning of s 386 of the Act.

For reasons given on transcript in proceedings on 7 July 2025, I have found that the Applicant was not dismissed within the meaning of either s 386(1) of the Act. Accordingly, at the time the Applicant made his application, he was not a person who had been dismissed for the purposes of s 365 of the Act. The respondent’s jurisdictional objection is therefore upheld, and the application must be dismissed.

The application is therefore dismissed. An order giving effect to this decision will be separately issued.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

Duncan Bruce, Applicant.
Renee Karakinos for the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2025.
Melbourne:

7 July

[1] Coles Supply Chain Pty Ltd v Milford [2020] FCFAC 152; [2021] HCASL 37.

[2] Ibid at [51].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The decision in the matter of Mr Duncan Bruce versus Liquorland (Australia) Pty. Ltd. involves an application by Duncan Bruce, the Applicant, who alleged that his termination of employment on 22 March 2025 by Liquorland (Australia) Pty. Ltd., the Respondent, contravened his workplace rights. The matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission (FWC), which was required to determine whether the Applicant was indeed dismissed under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Respondent raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing that the Applicant had not been dismissed as defined by section 386 of the Act.

The primary legal issue the Commission had to resolve was whether the Applicant had been dismissed within the meaning of section 386(1) of the Act. This determination was crucial as the Applicant’s eligibility to make a general protections dismissal dispute application hinged on being dismissed. The Commission had to ascertain the facts surrounding the termination and decide if it constituted a dismissal as defined by the Act. The Commission's determination on this matter would decide if it had the jurisdiction to hear the Applicant's application.

After examining the evidence presented, the Deputy President, Masson, concluded that the Applicant had not been dismissed within the meaning of section 386(1) of the Act. The reasoning for this decision was based on the specific criteria that define a dismissal under the Act and the factual circumstances of the Applicant's termination. Consequently, the Respondent's jurisdictional objection was upheld, and the application was dismissed because the Applicant did not meet the statutory definition of being dismissed. This decision means that the Commission did not have the jurisdiction to proceed with the Applicant's claims.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established