Ms Qingwei Wang v Learner Centre Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 2123

[2025] FWC 2123

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Ms Qingwei Wang
v

Learner Centre Pty Ltd

(U2024/9844)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BUTLER

BRISBANE, 22 JULY 2025

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

Ms Qingwei Alice Wang (“the Applicant”) has applied to the Fair Work Commission (“the Commission”) for a remedy, alleging that she was unfairly dismissed from her employment with Learner Centre Pty Ltd, which trades as Apex Training Institute (“Apex” or “the Respondent”).

Apex opposes the application and objects on the basis that Ms Wang’s dismissal was for genuine redundancy.

For the reasons set out below I have decided to dismiss the application.

Background

Ms Wang was the General Manager at the time of the termination of her employment. She reported to Mr Tony Njanja, the CEO of the Respondent, who also appears to have used the title “Marketing Director.” Ms Wang’s dismissal took effect on 9 August 2024.

Legislative framework

This application was made under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the Fair Work Act”) and alleges that the Applicant was unfairly dismissed. In unfair dismissal cases the two main questions are:[1]

· Was the Applicant “protected from unfair dismissal” at the time their employment ended?[2]

· Was the Applicant unfairly dismissed?[3]

These questions are considered in that order. If the Commission is satisfied that the answer to both is yes, then it can consider whether to order a remedy for the unfair dismissal.

There are various conditions the Applicant has to meet to be protected from unfair dismissal under section 382 of the Fair Work Act. There are also various issues to consider in deciding whether someone has been unfairly dismissed under section 385.

Section 385 of the Fair Work Act provides that a person has been unfairly dismissed if the Commission is satisfied that:

(a) the person has been dismissed; and

(b) the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; and

(c) the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code; and

(d) the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.

Under subsection 389(1) of the Fair Work Act, a person’s dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy if:

(a) the employer no longer required the person’s job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of the employer’s enterprise; and

(b) the employer has complied with any obligation in a modern award or enterprise agreement that applied to the employment to consult about the redundancy.

Subsection 389(2) of the Fair Work Act provides an exclusion, relating to whether the employee could reasonably have been redeployed within the employer’s enterprise or the enterprise of an associated entity of the employer.

This application

The application was filed on 22 August 2024. The employer response was filed on 19 September 2024. The parties did not resolve their dispute by conciliation, and so this application was allocated to me for determination.

I issued directions on 1 November 2024…

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.

Continue reading Ms Qingwei Wang v Learner Centre Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Ms Qingwei Wang v Learner Centre Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2123
Case: [2025] FWC 2123
Decision Date: 22 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Qingwei Alice Wang has applied to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy, alleging that she was unfairly dismissed from her employment with Learner Centre Pty Ltd, which trades as Apex Training Institute (Apex or the Respondent). The Respondent opposes the application and objects on the basis that Ms Wang’s dismissal was for genuine redundancy. The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application. The key issue was whether the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy. The Commission found that Ms Wang’s role as General Manager was no longer required because of changes in the operational requirements of the employer’s enterprise and that the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy. Given this finding, the question of whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable does not arise.

Orders