Nicole Finch v Titles Strata Management Pty Ltd T/A Titles Strata Management

In the matter of Nicole Finch versus Titles Strata Management Pty Ltd, trading as Titles Strata Management, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with resolving a dispute over an alleged unfair dismissal. Ms Finch sought redress under the Fair Work Act, claiming she was dismissed without just cause or excuse. The primary issue before the Commission was whether the respondent had contravened the Act by terminating her employment in a manner that was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Central to this inquiry were questions of whether Ms Finch had completed the requisite minimum employment period with the respondent, and whether the respondent qualified as a small business employer under the Act. Additionally, the court had to consider the interpretation of "employee" in the context of associated entities and the status of the respondent's director.

The respondent contested the claim on multiple fronts, primarily arguing that Ms Finch had not fulfilled the necessary employment period and that the company did not meet the definition of a small business. The respondent asserted that as a small business, it was exempt from certain provisions of the Act, including the unfair dismissal remedy. Furthermore, it was contended that the director of the company could not be considered an employee for the purposes of determining the company's size. The Commission meticulously examined the legislative framework, focusing on the interpretation of "small business" under section 23 of the Fair Work Act, which stipulates that a small business employer is one with fifteen or fewer employees. The evidence presented indicated that the respondent had more than fifteen employees, thus disqualifying it from the small business exemption.

After evaluating the evidence and submissions, the Fair Work Commission determined that Ms Finch had indeed completed the requisite minimum employment period and that the respondent was not a small business employer as it exceeded the employee threshold. Consequently, the Commission found that the respondent's actions constituted an unfair dismissal. The Commission held that the director, despite his role, was not exempt from being counted towards the employee total, which was critical in determining the employer's status. Accordingly, the respondent was liable for the unfair dismissal, and the Commission directed the respondent to take specific remedial actions, including reinstatement and compensation to Ms Finch.

The Commission ordered the respondent to reinstate Ms Finch to her former position and to pay her compensation for the period of unlawful termination. Furthermore, it directed the respondent to provide a written apology to Ms Finch and to take steps to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act in the future. These orders underscore the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Act and the consequences of non-compliance for both employers and employees.