Compensation plus Confirmation of Coexistence of Claims Across Jurisdictions

The ‘Good’ in ‘the Good the Bad the Ugly’ from our 29 July 2025 podcast on Restraint of Trade, Part 1.

An ex-employee received a big win in an unfair dismissal case, after nearly a decade of service with a healthcare and IT recruitment agency based in Sydney.

Background

An employee had not received a pay review in 2 years, and in the current cost of living crisis, asked for what he considered a long overdue review. The Company’s director responded to this request, noting he had little choice despite the Company struggling financially. Eventually an agreement was reached for a $5,000 pay increase.

Unfortunately, this agreed pay rise was not reflected in the next pay slip. The employee enquired about the missing pay increase and was advised by the director that:

• his base salary was enough;
• they had not agreed on a pay rise; and
• asked whether he wanted to continue working there or not.

The employee was then blocked from the company email system, meaning he was unable to respond or perform his duties. Later, the director initiated a chain of text messages which culminated in the employee being terminated, effective immediately. The employee was not paid notice of termination, his annual leave entitlements, long service leave entitlements or his commissions.

The Application

The employee lodged an unfair dismissal claim which was upheld by Deputy President Boyce. DP Boyce determined that he had been dismissed, and that that dismissal was unfair. In determining the amount of compensation DP Boyce considered that the employee would have remained employed for a further six months, if it had not been for the unfair dismissal, resulting in an award for compensation of approximately $45,000 plus super to be paid to the employee.

The employer made an application to reduce this amount due to the business’s financial hardship, and further requested any compensation be payable by instalments over a 12-month period. 

DP Boyce noted that the onus falls on employers to bring relevant evidence as to the specific impacts of compensation on the viability of the business when seeking reductions. In this case, the evidence presented was unsatisfactory to establish the specific impacts the proposed compensation would have on the business. As such, no reduction was made.

Further to this, the employer failed to specify in any detail how many instalments he proposed to make, or how much the company could afford to pay in each instalment. As such, DP Boyce ordered that the compensation be paid to the Applicant across a 6-week period. Any failure to meet one of the ordered instalments would result in the entire balance being payable immediately.

Concurrent Applications in Various Jurisdictions

It was acknowledged that the Applicant had made claims in the Federal Circuit and Family Court and the NSW Industrial Relations Commission for his unpaid entitlements relating to annual leave, long service leave, unpaid commissions, and notice of termination. The Fair Work Commission noted that the current award for compensation was for unfair dismissal only, and it was separate to, and did not impact any of the other claims for entitlements payable to him under statute or contract.

Key takeaways

This decision serves to:

• Reinforce the need for procedural fairness and protection of employee rights under Australian Law;
• Highlight the requirement of clear and reliable evidence in such proceedings; and
• Confirm that unfair dismissal rulings can coexist with separate claims for entitlements.

Ilias Kadji v Sigma Resourcing Pty. Ltd. [2025] FWC 1737 (20 June 2025)

This content is general in nature and provides a summary of the issues covered. It is not intended to be, nor should it be relied upon, as legal or professional advice for specific employment situations.