The employer attended conciliation without raising its jurisdictional objection
An employer's failure to maintain consistent employment records and its delayed jurisdictional challenge has allowed a dismissed worker's late unfair dismissal claim to proceed.
The Fair Work Commission recently granted Alyeesha Hall an extension of time to pursue her unfair dismissal application against Matic Transport Pty Ltd, despite it being filed 75 days after the statutory deadline. Deputy President Beaumont found the employer's own conduct contributed to the delay.
Hall was dismissed on 20 August 2025 following a six-month absence due to a non-work-related injury. The employer cited medical advice indicating she would not be able to perform the inherent requirements of her role within the reasonably foreseeable future.
After her dismissal, Hall sought assistance from the Transport Workers' Union to lodge an unfair dismissal application. However, confusion arose over the identity of her actual employer.
Hall's employment contracts from 2022 and 2024 both named "Matic Transport Pty Ltd" as the employer. Her payslips and termination letter, however, listed "Matic Transport" with an ABN registered to "The Matic Family Trust" – a discretionary trading trust.
When the TWU's industrial officer contacted the company's HR Manager to clarify the employing entity, the response proved unhelpful. The HR Manager confirmed Hall "was employed by Matic Transport, operating under the ABN 82 690 166 298" and stated this ABN "is registered to The Matic Family Trust, which trades as Matic Transport, and is the correct entity associated with her employment."
Relying on this information, the TWU lodged an unfair dismissal application with the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission, believing it was the correct jurisdiction for matters involving family trusts. The application was filed within the WAIRC's 28-day time limit.
The employer then compounded the problem. When lodging its response to the WAIRC application, it failed to tick the jurisdictional objection box. It proceeded to attend a conciliation conference on 6 November 2025 without raising any jurisdictional concerns.
It was not until 14 November 2025 – more than two months after the Fair Work Commission deadline had passed – that the employer finally raised its objection, claiming it was a constitutional corporation and the WAIRC lacked jurisdiction.
Deputy President Beaumont was critical of the employer's conduct, finding it "contributed to the period of delay." The Deputy President noted the employer "failed to appropriately inform the Applicant (through the TWU) as to the entity that employed her, then failed to make a jurisdictional objection when filing the WAIRC Response, then participated in a conciliation conference before the WAIRC – again purportedly failing to identify that there was a jurisdictional issue."
The Commission found Hall was "blameless" for the late filing, having promptly sought advice and relied on her union representatives throughout.
The extension was granted, and the matter will now proceed on the merits of the unfair dismissal claim.
