Qingwei Wang v Learner Centre Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 693

[2025] FWC 693

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Qingwei Wang
v

Learner Centre Pty Ltd

(U2024/9844)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BUTLER

BRISBANE, 10 MARCH 2025

Application for unfair dismissal remedy – application for summary dismissal of proceedings – application, for summary dismissal, dismissed

The Respondent in the substantive proceedings has applied to the Commission to dismiss the substantive application.[1] It has done so on the basis that it says the substantive application is “without merit.” [2] The Commission can dismiss an application because it has no reasonable prospects of success.[3] The Respondent has not specifically identified this ground. The Respondent is self-represented; I discern from its reference to the application being “without merit” that the application is made in reliance on this power.
The substantive Applicant Ms Wang applied to the Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy. She claims that she was unfairly dismissed. The Respondent says she was not unfairly dismissed, and that the dismissal came about because of a genuine redundancy.
For the reasons below I have decided not to dismiss the substantive application for an unfair dismissal remedy. I have decided to dismiss the Respondent’s application for the substantive application to be summarily dismissed.

Background

Ms Wang’s application states she commenced her employment in 2014.[4] The Learner Centre Pty Ltd (the Learner Centre) says her current employment commenced in 2015.[5]
It appears to be common ground that Ms Wang was the General Manager at the time of her dismissal.
Ms Wang’s application gives her termination date as 9 August[6] and the Learner Centre’s response states that it was 8 August.
Ms Wang filed the substantive application, that commenced these proceedings, on 22 August 2024.
Ms Wang filed her witness statements and written submissions on 2 December 2024. The Learner Centre filed their materials in response on 18 December 2024. Ms Wang filed her reply materials on 3 January 2025.
The Respondent filed this summary dismissal application on 17 January 2025. I directed the parties to file written submissions and any affidavits in relation to this application. The Learner Centre provided its submissions, an unsworn statement from the CEO of a human resources consultancy, and some documents on 28 January 2025. Ms Wang did not provide any response, and naturally in that circumstance the Learner Centre did not file materials in reply.

The legislative framework

Section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009 Cth (“the Fair Work Act”) provides:

587 Dismissing applications
(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:
(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or
(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.
Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.

…
(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.

The power…

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 Qingwei Wang v Learner Centre Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Qingwei Wang v Learner Centre Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 693
Case: [2025] FWC 693
Decision Date: 10 MARCH 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Qingwei Wang versus Learner Centre Pty Ltd was decided by the Fair Work Commission, Deputy President Butler in Brisbane on 10 March 2025. The dispute concerns an application for an unfair dismissal remedy by Ms Wang, who was the General Manager of the Learner Centre, against her employer, Learner Centre Pty Ltd. Ms Wang claims that she was unfairly dismissed, while the Respondent argues that the dismissal was due to genuine redundancy.

The legal issues before the court were whether the dismissal was for genuine redundancy and, if not, whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Ms Wang argued that she was not dismissed because of operational requirements or that if she was, the Learner Centre failed to consult as required and failed to explore redeployment options. The Learner Centre maintained that the dismissal was due to operational requirements and that there were no alternative or suitable roles for Ms Wang. The court found that there were genuine issues to be tried regarding whether the dismissal was for genuine redundancy and whether it was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

Deputy President Butler dismissed the Learner Centre's application for summary dismissal, stating that Ms Wang's application had reasonable prospects of success. The court noted that there were disputes between the parties about whether the dismissal was for genuine redundancy and about matters relevant to whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The court concluded that these issues could not be determined on the papers and that the matter should proceed to hearing and determination in the usual way.

In summary, the court dismissed the Learner Centre's application for summary dismissal and allowed Ms Wang's application for an unfair dismissal remedy to proceed to a hearing. The decision highlights the importance of the court exercising caution when considering applications for summary dismissal and the need to allow substantive applications to proceed to a hearing where there are genuine issues to be tried.

Orders