Ms Brigitte Chamia v Quikfund Australia Pty Ltd

Ms Brigitte Chamia applied for unfair dismissal, contending that she was made redundant without proper consultation by Quikfund Australia Pty Ltd. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred on the procedural aspects of the redundancy, specifically whether the employer complied with the award's requirement to consult with the employee, and whether the redundancy was genuine. The applicant further argued that her employment should be considered continuous since 1996 due to the associated entities of the respondent, invoking section 311 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court needed to determine if the employer had failed to consult with the applicant as required by the award, and if this failure invalidated the redundancy. Additionally, it had to assess whether the redundancy was genuine, considering the applicant's claim of continuity of service with associated entities of the respondent. The court examined the evidence provided by the applicant regarding the continuity of employment and found it insufficient to establish a continuous service link back to 1996. Consequently, the applicant's service was restricted to the last company for which she worked.

The court held that the employer's failure to consult rendered the redundancy invalid. It concluded that the applicant's dismissal was unjust, given the procedural breach and the lack of evidence to support her claim of continuity of service. The court ordered compensation for the unfair dismissal, recognising the unjust nature of the dismissal despite the lack of evidence for continuity of employment.