Ms Joanna Pascua v Doessel Group Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 1833

[2025] FWC 1833

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Ms Joanna Pascua
v

Doessel Group Pty Ltd

(U2024/3881)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SLEVIN

SYDNEY, 27 JUNE 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – applicant unfairly dismissed – reinstatement not appropriate- compensation in lieu of reinstatement ordered

Introduction

Ms Joanna Pascua alleges that she was unfairly dismissed by Doessel Group Pty Ltd. She seeks an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to s 394 of the Fair Work Act2009 (Cth). Doessel objected to the application on the basis that Ms Pascua was not dismissed because she was not an employee. That issue was decided in an earlier decision[1] and was the subject of an appeal. The appeal was dismissed[2]. This decision deals with Ms Pascua’s claim that she was unfairly dismissed.

The application was heard by way of conference and Ms Pascua represented herself. The Respondent was represented by Mr Graham Doessel.

I find that Ms Pascua was unfairly dismissed and award compensation in lieu of reinstatement in the sum of $10,800.00. These are my reasons.

Section 390 provides that the Commission may order a person’s reinstatement, or the payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement if satisfied the person was protected from unfair dismissal and has been unfairly dismissed.

Section 382 provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if the person is an employee who has completed a period of employment of at least the minimum employment period and is covered by a modern award, an enterprise agreement applies to the person, or the person earns less than the high-income threshold. The Respondent’s contention that Ms Pascua was not an employee was dealt with in the earlier decisions. It is not contended that Ms Pascua is otherwise not protected from unfair dismissal. I am satisfied that she was.

Section 385 relevantly provides that a person has been unfairly dismissed if the Commission is satisfied of four things: the person has been dismissed; the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code, and the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy. I am satisfied that Ms Pascua was dismissed, the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code, and the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy

The Respondent contends that Ms Pascua was not unfairly dismissed because her dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

Background

Ms Pascua performed work as a legal assistant for an entity known as MyCRA Lawyers. MyCRA Lawyers operates a business providing specialist credit repair services. It operates out of premises located in Queensland. Ms Pascua lives and performed work from her home in the Philippines.

Ms Pascua commenced employment on 21 July 2022 as a paralegal. She described the work as involving working from her computer, at home, at times that matched business hours in Australia. Her hours of work were 8.30 am to 5.00 pm. She was allocated files…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ms Joanna Pascua v Doessel Group Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FWC 1833
Decision Date: 27 JUNE 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Joanna Pascua has applied to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy against Doessel Group Pty Ltd. Ms Pascua, a legal assistant, was employed by the respondent and performed work from her home in the Philippines. The respondent dismissed Ms Pascua during a Skype call on 20 March 2024. Ms Pascua claims that her dismissal was unfair and she seeks an unfair dismissal remedy. The respondent contends that Ms Pascua was not dismissed because she was not an employee, and further, that the dismissal was fair. The application was heard by way of video conference and Ms Pascua represented herself. The respondent was represented by Mr Graham Doessel.

The issue to be decided was whether Ms Pascua was unfairly dismissed. The relevant statutory provisions are sections 385, 390, 382, 387 and 392 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Commission found that Ms Pascua was unfairly dismissed. The dismissal was not based on a valid reason related to her capacity or conduct. Further, the dismissal did not comply with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. The Commission ordered that the respondent pay Ms Pascua an amount of $10,800.00 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

Ms Pascua performed work as a legal assistant for MyCRA Lawyers. Ms Pascua commenced employment on 21 July 2022. Ms Pascua described the work as involving working from her computer, at home, at times that matched business hours in Australia. Her hours of work were 8.30 am to 5.00 pm. She was allocated files by email each day and was required to liaise with clients of MyCRA Lawyers and with banks and other credit providers on behalf of those clients. She did so by telephone and email. Ms Pascua described the work as involving investigating credit claims on clients’ behalf. Ms Pascua was dismissed by Mr Doessel during a Skype call on 20 March 2024. Ms Pascua had sent an email to a credit provider on behalf of a client asking that an enquiry the provider had made to a credit agency be withdrawn. Ms Pascua was dismissed because the email had been sent without following specific instruction and proper procedures, and that it was deficient in a number of respects. The conversation between Ms Pascua and Mr Doessel was heated. Ms Pascua complained that she had been overworked as others who had left the business had not been replaced. Mr Doessel was not receptive to Ms Pascua’s concerns; he told her she was talking like a crazy woman and recommended she seek psychological help. Ms Pascua responded that this was demeaning. Ms Pascua was told she was simply required to follow procedures. Ms Pascua told Mr Doessel that he had been rude and condescending. The conversation went on to further discuss concerns about the way Ms Pascua was working including previous matters where issues were raised about her work.

The Commission considered whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The Commission found that the dismissal was not based on a valid reason related to Ms Pascua’s capacity or conduct. The Commission found that the dismissal did not comply with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. The dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable because the dismissal was made in an agitated state and done without the careful consideration that should accompany a decision to dismiss someone. The Commission was satisfied that Ms Pascua was unfairly dismissed within the meaning of s.385 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Ms Pascua did not seek reinstatement. The Commission found that in any event the relationship had broken down and reinstatement was inappropriate. The Commission ordered that the respondent pay Ms Pascua an amount of $10,800.00 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

Orders