1
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Shane Timmins
v
Alpha K9 Security Pty Ltd
(U2024/10626)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS NEWCASTLE, 13 FEBRUARY 2025
Unfair dismissal application – whether applicant was dismissed – application dismissed
Introduction
[1] Mr Shane Timmins was employed on a casual basis as a security officer by Alpha K9
Security Pty Ltd (Alpha) from November 2022 until he alleges he was dismissed in 2024. Mr
Timmins contends that he was unfairly dismissed. Alpha denies that a dismissal took place.
[2] On 29 January 2025, I conducted a hearing in relation to Mr Timmins’ claim that he was
unfairly dismissed. Mr Timmins gave evidence, as did Ms Madeleine Mortiss, director and
company secretary of Alpha.
Dismissal
[3] The question of when a person has been dismissed is governed by s 386 of the Fair
Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). It relevantly provides:
“(1) A person has been dismissed if:
(a) the person’s employment with his or his employer has been terminated
on the employer’s initiative; or
(b) the person has resigned from his or his employment, but was forced to
do so because of conduct, or a course of conduct, engaged in by his or
his employer.”
[4] Mr Timmins is not sure of whether his dismissal falls within the first or second limb of
s 386, so I will consider both limbs.
General principles
[2025] FWC 430
DECISION
AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission
[2025] FWC 430
2
[5] The expression termination “on the employer’s initiative” in s 386(1)(a) is a reference
to a termination of the employment relationship and/or termination of the contract of
employment1 that is brought about by an employer and which is not agreed to by the employee.2
[6] In circumstances where the employment relationship is not left voluntarily by the
employee, the focus of the inquiry under s 386(1)(a) is whether an action on the part of the
employer was the principal contributing factor which results, directly or consequentially, in the
termination of the employment.3
[7] Section 386(1)(b) of the Act concerns the resignation of an employee where the
resignation was “forced” by conduct or a course of conduct on the part of the employer. The
question of whether a resignation did or did not occur does not depend on the parties’ subjective
intentions or understandings.4 Whether an employee resigned depends on what a reasonable
person in the position of the parties would have understood was the objective position, based
on what each party had said or done, in light of the surrounding circumstances.5
[8] The test to be applied in determining whether a resignation was “forced” within the
meaning of s 386(1)(b) is whether the employer engaged in the conduct with the intention of
bringing the employment to an end or whether termination of the employment was the probable
result of the employer’s conduct such that the employee had no effective or real choice but to
resign.6 The requisite employer conduct is the essential element.7
Relevant facts re alleged dismissal
[9] The owners and directors of Alpha are, and were at all material times, Ms Mortiss and
her partner, Mr Ashley Sefton.
[10] Alpha undertakes security work for its clients. Some of that work involves Alpha’s
security officers dealing directly with members of the public in pubs and clubs. Other work
does not involve interaction with members of the public, including security work at places such
as building sites or other physical assets, often, but not always, with a security dog. Hence, the
name of the business: Alpha K9 Security.
[11] Mr Timmins has a number of security dogs. I accept Ms Mortiss’ evidence that when
Mr Timmins commenced employment with Alpha he informed her that he had a number of
security dogs and wished to do security work for Alpha with a dog. Mr Timmins informed Ms
Mortiss that he did not wish to do security work involving interactions with members of the
public, such as at clubs and pubs. No such work was offered to Mr Timmins.
[12] Mr Timmins accepts that, at all times during his employment with Alpha, he was a
casual employee. The other security officers employed by Alpha were engaged on a part-time
or full-time basis.
[13] Most of the security work undertaken by Mr Timmins for Alpha was performed by him
with one of his security dogs. Occasionally, such as during a particular phase of construction
on a building project, the client would inform Alpha that it did not require a security dog to be
present during security patrols by Alpha’s security officers.8 On those occasions, Mr Timmins
would perform the security work without one of his security dogs.
[2025] FWC 430
3
[14] In the first few months of his employment with Alpha, Mr Timmins raised issues
concerning superannuation, not being provided with timesheets, payslips, and not wanting to
be paid in cash for any of the shifts he undertook for Alpha. The ‘cash’ payments were made in
about November 2022 and involved the transfer of funds directly into Mr Timmins’ bank
account. Ms Mortiss says that these payments were made to Mr Timmins in the early part of
his employment because Alpha did not have the necessary paperwork from Mr Timmins to be
able to pay him in the usual way, so some direct payments were made to him for a few weeks
until the usual systems were established. No ‘cash’ payments were made to Mr Timmins after
November 2022.
[15] Part of Alpha’s occupational health and safety policy was for its security officers to use
a Uni Guard application (Uni Guard app) on their mobile telephone to enable the police and
Alpha to know the location of Alpha’s security officers in the event that they were missing or
unaccounted for in the course of their employment. The Uni Guard app also enables Alpha to
easily demonstrate to its clients that its security officers have visited particular parts of the
client’s premises at the times indicated in the app. It is apparent that this policy of security
officers using the Uni Guard app was not uniformly enforced by Alpha. Mr Timmins was given
a direction to use the Uni Guard mobile telephone application for his protection, but he refused
to put the Uni Guard app on his personal mobile telephone on the basis of a concern about
digital security. Mr Timmins presented alternative options of Alpha providing him with a
mobile phone or him purchasing a separate mobile phone, loading the Uni Guard app onto it
and then being reimbursed for this expense by Alpha. These alternative options were not taken
up. Instead, Alpha accepted Mr Timmins’ choice not to load the Uni Guard app onto his mobile
phone and did not offer him shifts where Alpha’s client required the use of the Uni Guard app
by Alpha’s security officers. The consequence of Mr Timmins’ choice not to load the Uni Guard
app onto his mobile phone was that he was offered less shifts than otherwise would have been
the case because he was not offered shifts where the client required use of the Uni Guard app.
[16] In April 2023, Mr Timmins informed Mr Ashley Sefton, a director of Alpha, that he
would not be downloading the Uni Guard application and if that meant he could not work then
he would take that as termination of his employment and he would find another job.
[17] By text message sent to Mr Timmins by Mr Sefton on 25 April 2023, Mr Timmins was
offered regular Friday night and Saturday night shifts at a site in Stockton where the client did
not require Mr Timmins to use the Uni Guard app.9 Mr Timmins accepted that offer. Instead of
using the Uni Guard app, Mr Timmins took site photographs during his shifts as a security
officer, which could be used as evidence in his preparation of site incident reports or historical
reviewing.
[18] On 7 April 2024, Mr Timmins and Ms Mortiss exchanged text messages in the following
terms:
Ms Mortiss:
“Hey there
Wednesday to Sunday 1800-060 built.
K9 not required on site though this week with you.
[2025] FWC 430
4
Please.
Also have another site with k9 to slot you into next week or week after when
built finishes.
Tuesday to Sunday please.”
Mr Timmins:
“OK”
[19] On 26 June 2024, Mr Timmins was offered a shift by Alpha at the Maitland Waste Depot
from 4pm that afternoon until 6am the next morning. Mr Timmins accepted the shift and arrived
at the work site about 30 minutes prior to the shift commencement time. Between the time Mr
Timmins arrived at the work site and the commencement of the shift, another Alpha security
officer arrived at the work site. Mr Timmins then contacted Ms Mortiss and they had a
conversation in words to the following effect:
Ms Mortiss: “You are not required for the shift and can go home.”
Mr Timmins: “I need to be paid for my time.”
Ms Mortiss: “No, we won’t be paying anything.”
Mr Timmins: “Yes you will. This is not acceptable. All this is doing is using people.
You are not doing the correct things. Payslips are not being received and it has come to
my attention that pay rates are not correct.”
Ms Mortiss: “That’s not right. All pay slips are automatically issued after payment
through Zero. I will look into it.”
Mr Timmins: “Now another guard has turned up. It’s Todd. Paying people cash is not
right and unsafe. I’m going home. This needs to get sorted out.”
[20] Mr Timmins then said to the other security guard, Todd, “This is bullshit. This mob is
not paying correctly and doing the right thing.” Todd said, “I’m being paid cash.” Mr Timmins
then left the work site. On his way home, Mr Timmins received a text message from Ms Mortiss
to inform him that Alpha would pay him four hours’ pay for his shift on 26 June 2024. Ms
Mortiss also apologised for the confusion.10
[21] I accept Ms Mortiss’ evidence that an innocent miscommunication led to three security
officers attending for work at the one site on 26 June 2024. Ms Mortiss did not see Mr Timmins’
text message response indicating that he was available for the shift. The second security guard
who attended the site was organised to work. The third security guard called in sick but then
attended the work site because it was close to his home and he wanted to make sure a security
guard attended to cover his shift.
[22] On 29 June 2024, Mr Timmins performed his last shift as a security officer for Alpha.
[2025] FWC 430
5
[23] On 2 July 2024, Mr Timmins was informed by text message that he would need to be
replaced for a shift on Saturday because the client, Maitland Council, was insisting on “the
UniGuard app being used every 30 minutes for patrols”, but Mr Timmins would be informed if
the situation changed. Mr Timmins was also advised in the text message that Alpha did “have
more K9 work coming up in shortly in Newcastle”.
[24] Mr Timmins contends that Maitland Council did not insist on the Uni Guard app being
used every 30 minutes for patrols. I do not accept that contention. I accept Ms Mortiss’ evidence
that Alpha informed Maitland Council that it would ensure the Uni Guard app was used every
30 minutes for patrols and Maitland Council insisted that Alpha meet their commitment in this
regard. Contextually, it is relevant to note that the use of the Uni Guard app was discussed
between representatives of Maitland Council and Ms Mortiss in circumstances where there had
been recent incidents involving stealing of property from the Maitland Council waste facility
where the security work was being carried out by Alpha. I accept Ms Mortiss’ evidence in
relation to these communications with Maitland Council.
[25] In the period between about 24 July 2024 and 12 August 2024, Mr Timmins exchanged
emails with the directors of Alpha in relation to missing payslips, cash payments,
superannuation, and how Alpha was calculating Mr Timmins’ pay under the Security Services
Industry Award 2020 (Security Award).
[26] By 30 July 2024, a number of payslips had been provided by Alpha to Mr Timmins, but
he was missing about four payslips which related to the cash payments made to him in about
November 2022.
[27] On 12 August 2024, Mr Timmins had an emergency with one of his dogs, Ragnar, where
surgery was required but Mr Timmins could not afford the cost of the surgery. As result, Mr
Timmins had to make the very difficult decision to have Ragnar euthanised. Mr Timmins
blames Alpha for Ragnar’s death because he contends that if he had been paid properly under
the Security Award, then he would have been able to pay for Ragnar’s surgery.
[28] In response to the issues raised by Mr Timmins in late July and early August 2024, Mr
Timmins received an email from Ms Mortiss on 16 August 2024 in the following terms:
“It’s be good [sic] if you and I could chat to discuss how we can resolve this matter because I
want to be able to resolve and both be happy to move forward from here.”
[29] At no point prior to 17 August 2024 did Mr Timmins inform Alpha of the basis for his
assertion that he was not being paid in accordance with the Security Award or the calculation
or quantum of any such underpayment. Further, prior to 17 August 2024, Alpha offered Mr
Timmins to have access to its Xero payroll system so that he could access whatever information
he needed in relation to payments made to him by Alpha during his employment.
[30] On 17 August 2024, Mr Timmins sent an email to Ms Mortiss in the following terms:
I acknowledge your email dated 16 August 2024.
[2025] FWC 430
6
From my standpoint I prefer that all correspondence between us is in written format so
that there is no confusion and transparency exists.
In regards to your statement “resolve and both be happy to move forward from here”.
unless you have the power to turn back time to the 26 June 2024 and the 02 July 2024
It can never be resolved to a satisfactory level which I am happy about. I had to put my
beautiful boy (Ragnar 2 years, 11 mths) down because I didn’t have the money to pay
for the operation because of your actions. If you would have abided by the legal statutes
and done the correct things from the onset this would not have happened and we would
need to have this conversation.
It is evident to me now that I was terminated (unbeknown to me) and replaced by
someone who is being paid cash because I voiced my opinions and that payslips and pay
rates are incorrect which is a legal right upon which cannot be punished.
Moreover, paying employees cash is in breach of our statutes not to mention by doing
such willfully and placing these employees on a job site creates an unsafe workplace
and is in breach of those statues and all companies policies of whom you provide work
to.
I believe that my correspondence has been clear and that the rectification process has
commenced which will resolve this matter financially, but it will never make me happy
and certainly not provide me peace. You will be notified possibly from time to time for
requests for information, updates and on completion, but the process needs to run its
course.
The agencies which are involved with this matter are at this time:
• Fair Work Commission – Unfair dismissal
• Fair Work Ombudsman – Pay rates and allowances
• Australian Taxation Office – Taxation and Superannuation
• Safework – Workplace safety and compliance
I will have an email written and forwarded to Ashley requesting details on making a
claim due to damages incurred while performing work duties soon.
Madeleine, if you truly are sincere and want both of us to resolve this matter and be
happy as you have stated. You had that opportunity and obligation and you should have
made the effort and contacted me 6 weeks ago, not just drop me like a sack of hot
potatoes, treating people like that is deplorable and shows a low moral compass (in my
opinion). My phone was on and I was waiting for employment and I would have been
more than willing to discuss this matter with you and Ashley but you didn’t call nor
make an effort, as normal; one’s concerns were dismissed or punished for speaking up.
That is why I started requesting details and particulars from you because this was not
going to go away.
[2025] FWC 430
7
Sadly, with what has happened now (losing my boy) and my absolute distrust with you
and Ashley I have no interest working with you, that is irreversibly destroyed. I will
obtain work elsewhere or start my own K9 security business.
I provide you with a picture (put a face to him) of my beloved young boy who I picked
up from the crematorium yesterday. Who I couldn’t help when he needed me most – if
I was paid and treated correctly as per statues which you are aware of and denied me, I
would have had the money for the operation.
The only reason I inform you of Ragnar’s passing is that it shows you how your
decisions and actions impact on the lives of others. I would allow you to keep what is
owed to me and more if I could have him back. He didn’t deserve this but I didn’t have
the finances for the surgery. I treat my dogs better than most treat their children and it’s
a heavy burden on me for what I was forced to do.
Your actions towards me (and maybe others) are dishonest and deceptive and that you
have and continue to deprive me of finances which are rightfully mine of which I could
have used in a much needed time. I trusted you to do the right thing. These actions have
caused me a huge financial disadvantage and emotional distress. The guilt of having to
put Ragnar down is eating at me and I despise you and Ashley for placing me in this
current position. So I have no interest in talking with you verbally, that boat sailed, and
I certainly would not be verbally respectful.
Please don’t respond saying you’re sorry to hear about Ragnar because I will deem that
an insult to him and me and distressing.
The only thing that I desire is having Ragnar back. If you can’t fulfil that only want I
have, then there is nothing you can offer me which will make me happy.
The process of rectification is of your own doing and is in-motion unless you can turn
back time, what transpires from henceforth is all that is needed to resolve and correct all
failings.
I will inform you when I know more.
[31] On 6 September 2024, Mr Timmins’ unfair dismissal application was filed in the
Commission. The application contends that Mr Timmins’ dismissal took effect on 17 August
2024, in circumstances where Mr Timmins accepted the non-allocation of work to him as
repudiatory conduct entitling him to bring his employment contract to an end.
[32] On 6 November 2024, Mr Timmins provided a handwritten letter to Centrelink in which
he stated that he was terminated from his employment with Alpha on or about 30 June 2024
because he complained about payments being incorrect and non-payment of superannuation. In
one of his submissions to the Commission, Mr Timmins contended that his employment ended
on “2 July 2024 through an SMS which I have reasons to believe are false and misleading
comments”.
[2025] FWC 430
8
[33] Mr Timmins confirmed in his reply statement that his unfair dismissal application is
based on his email of 17 August 2024.11 In his submissions, Mr Timmins contended that he was
forced to resign because of the following conduct on the part of Alpha:
(a) No shifts were provided to Mr Timmins between 30 June 2024 and 17 August
2024. This is to be contrasted to the regular work Mr Timmins was performing
for Alpha, at an average of about 43 hours a week, in 2023 and prior to 30 June
2024. Mr Timmins contends that available work was not being offered to him;
(b) Mr Timmins believed that Alpha was not paying him in accordance with the
Security Award;
(c) Mr Timmins believed that Alpha was not contributing to his superannuation fund
in accordance with its legal obligations;
(d) Mr Timmins had not received payslips for the initial period of his employment
with Alpha (about four weeks); and
(e) Mr Timmins believes that he was replaced by an employee of Alpha at the
Maitland Council waste site because the other employee was willing to receive
cash payments for work at that site.
[34] Following the cessation of Mr Timmins’ employment with Alpha, Ms Mortiss carried
out a review of Alpha’s payroll records insofar as they related to Mr Timmins, who was the
only employee of Alpha engaged on a casual basis. As a result of this review, a payment was
made by Alpha to Mr Timmins’ bank account. Notwithstanding this payment, Mr Timmins
disputes that he has been paid for his work for Alpha in accordance with the Security Award.
Consideration re dismissal
[35] I reject Mr Timmins’ argument that, on 17 August 2024, he accepted the non-allocation
of work to him as repudiatory conduct entitling him to bring his employment contract to an end.
Mr Timmins was a casual employee of Alpha. He had no contractual entitlement to be offered,
or work, any particular hours or shifts each week. I accept that Mr Timmins worked an average
of about 43 hours per week in 2023/2024, but this did not give rise to any obligation on the part
of Alpha, or a right on the part of Mr Timmins, to work regular or systematic hours of work
into the future.
[36] Mr Timmins contends that the text message he received from Ms Mortiss on 7 April
202412 is evidence of an agreement that he would be given regular and systematic hours of work
into the future, including beyond 29 June 2024. The text message from Ms Mortiss does not
constitute evidence of any such agreement. The text message is limited to another site where
Alpha intended to “slot” Mr Timmins in for shifts as a security officer once a particular project
finished. The text does not make any reference to an ongoing commitment to provide such work
for Mr Timmins. I consider the text message to be a typical communication to a casual employee
such as Mr Timmins concerning work which may be available for him in the future. The text
message does not contain any promissory language or text suggesting the existence or a right
or obligation concerning hours of work for Mr Timmins.
[2025] FWC 430
9
[37] Having regard to all the circumstances, I am satisfied that Mr Timmins’ employment
with Alpha was not terminated on Alpha’s initiative. There was no action on the part of Alpha
which was the principal contributing factor which resulted, directly or consequentially, in the
termination of the employment of Mr Timmins. Alpha’s conduct in the relevant period included
informing Mr Timmins, on 2 July 2024, that Alpha expected to have “more K9 working coming
up shortly in Newcastle”, providing documents and information to Mr Timmins in response to
a number (but not all) requests made by him for payslips and other information, and an
invitation by Ms Mortiss, on 16 August 2024, to “chat” with Mr Timmins to discuss how they
could resolve the issues being raised by Mr Timmins. This conduct suggests that Alpha wished
for its employment relationship with Mr Timmins to remain on foot.
[38] Although Mr Timmins was not offered any shifts by Alpha in the period from 30 June
2024 to 17 August 2024 and this was a significant change from the average of 43 hours he was
working for Alpha prior to 30 June 2024, I accept Ms Mortiss’ evidence that there were good
reasons for that change and those reasons did not include the fact that Mr Timmins had raised
concerns with Alpha about not being provided with payslips, not being paid in accordance with
the Security Award, superannuation, and not wanting to be paid cash. It was Mr Timmins’
choice not to put the Uni Guard app on his mobile phone. As a consequence, Mr Timmins was
not offered security officer work at sites where Alpha’s client required the use of the Uni Guard
app. I accept Ms Mortiss’ evidence that the Maitland Council waste site was a site where
Maitland Council were insisting, by 2 July 2024, that Alpha meet its commitment for its security
officers to use the Uni Guard app every 30 minutes for patrols. All other security officers
employed by Alpha were willing to, and did, download and use the Uni Guard app on their
personal mobile phones for security patrol work. Some of those security officers were offered
shifts by Alpha at the Maitland Council waste site after 29 June 2024. I do not accept Mr
Timmins’ contention that other security officers were offered work by Alpha at the Maitland
Council waste site because they were willing to be paid in cash by Alpha. I accept Ms Mortiss’
evidence that the need to use the Uni Guard app on the Maitland Council waste site was the
reason such work was offered to other security officers and not to Mr Timmins after 29 June
2024. This is consistent with the contemporaneous text message sent to Mr Timmins on 2 July
202413 and Ms Mortiss’ oral evidence about her discussions with representatives of Maitland
Council. It also rings true that a client, such as Maitland Council, who has had thefts from its
premises would want to see evidence that security officers were present at, and moving around,
its site during a shift. The Uni Guard app allows such information to be provided to the client
in a transparent and timely manner. I also accept Ms Mortiss’ evidence that Alpha did not have
any security officer shifts involving a security dog available for Mr Timmins in the period
between 30 June 2024 and 17 August 2024. On 2 July 2024, Mr Sefton expected to have such
work available,14 but the expected work did not eventuate. Alpha had some security officer
work available at an Orica site, but this work did not involve a security dog and Ms Mortiss
understood from what Mr Timmins had told her that he wanted to do canine security work,
albeit Mr Timmins had done some work for Alpha on sites where a security dog was not
required for a particular period of time.15 Alpha arranged for some of its permanent employees
to work at the Orica site.
[39] I am satisfied that Mr Timmins did resign from his employment with Alpha on 17
August 2024. So much is clear from the part of his 17 August email where Mr Timmins
informed Ms Mortiss that he had “no interest working for you, that is irreversibly destroyed. I
[2025] FWC 430
10
will obtain work elsewhere or start my own K9 security business.” However, I do not accept
that Mr Timmins was forced to resign because of conduct, or a course of conduct, engaged in
by Alpha.
[40] I am satisfied that Alpha did not engage in any conduct with the intention of bringing
its employment relationship with Mr Timmins to an end. On the basis of the evidence to which
I have referred above, I am satisfied that Alpha was willing to discuss with Mr Timmins the
issues he had raised and roster him for canine security officer work when such work became
available for him. Alpha indicated by its conduct that it wanted the employment relationship
with Mr Timmins to remain on foot.
[41] I am also satisfied that termination of Mr Timmins’ employment was not the probable
result of Alpha’s conduct such that Mr Timmins had no effective or real choice but to resign.
Mr Timmins had a range of real options, other than resignation, available to him. He could have
obtained some casual security work through another employer and waited to see what, if any,
work was offered to him by Alpha in the future (after 17 August 2024). It is not uncommon for
casual employees in many industries to remain on the “books” of various employers and accept
the shifts that suit them at particular times. As to the issues raised by Mr Timmins with Alpha
concerning his alleged underpayment of wages, superannuation, payslips and the like, there is
no reason why Mr Timmins could not have taken up Ms Mortiss’ offer to discuss those issues
with her with the objective of resolving them and both being “happy to move forward”. Mr
Timmins could also have raised a dispute under the dispute resolution procedure in the Security
Award or sought the assistance of the Fair Work Ombudsman, while he remained an employee
of Alpha, in resolving his concerns about an underpayment of wages.
[42] Having carefully observed and listened to the evidence given by Mr Timmins, I find on
the balance of probabilities that the predominant reason he resigned from his employment with
Alpha is because he was very upset at the death of his dog (Ragnar) on 12 August 2024 and he
blamed Alpha for that death because he believes that he would have been able to afford the
surgery required by Ragnar if Alpha had paid him in accordance with the Security Award. Mr
Timmins’ email of 17 August 2024 supports this finding. Further, by the time Ragnar required
surgery on 12 August 2024, Mr Timmins had raised a general concern with Alpha that he was
not being paid in accordance with the Security Award but he had not articulated the basis of
that concern or provided any calculations to support his contention. Had Mr Timmins raised
those issues with Ms Mortiss in a calm, measured and detailed way, I am confident that Ms
Mortiss would have considered them seriously and carefully and then worked with Mr Timmins
to get to the bottom of his concerns. My confidence in this regard is supported by the actions
of Ms Mortiss after Mr Timmins’ resignation in conducting a review of the payroll records as
they related to Mr Timmins and making a payment of a shortfall of wages into Mr Timmins’
account. Mr Timmins disputes that he has been paid all that he is entitled to, but the actions of
Ms Mortiss suggest that there was a willingness to work with Mr Timmins to resolve these
issues while the employment relationship remained on foot. I do not accept that Alpha’s conduct
in not paying Mr Timmins all his entitlements under the Security Award meant that Mr
Timmins had no effective or real choice but to resign.
Conclusion
[2025] FWC 430
11
[43] For the reasons given, Mr Timmins was not dismissed within the meaning of s 386 of
the Act. He was therefore not unfairly dismissed.
[44] Mr Timmins’ unfair dismissal application is dismissed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
Mr S. Timmins appeared for himself
Mr K. Vierboom, solicitor, appeared for the respondent
Hearing details:
2025.
Newcastle
29 January.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
PR784325
1 NSW Trains v James [2022] FWCFB 55, 15[45].
2 Mohazab v Dick Smith Electronics Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 625; (1995) 62 IR 200.
3 Ibid.
4 Koutalis v Pollett [2015] FCA 1165, 12 [43]; Canberra Urology Pty Ltd v Lancaster [2021] FWCFB 1704, 8 [30]
5 Ibid.
6 Bupa Aged Care Australia Pty Ltd v Tavassoli [2017] FWCFB 3941, 24 [47(2)]
7 Ibid.
8 See, for example, Hearing Book 89.
9 Hearing Book 225.
10 Hearing Book 188.
11 Hearing Book 154.
12 See paragraph [18] above.
13 Hearing Book 85.
14 Ibid.
15 See, for example, Hearing Book 89.
OF THE FOR WORK AUSTRALIA MMISSION THE SE
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2022fwcfb55.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2021fwcfb1704.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2017fwcfb3941.htm
