By Mike Toten Freelance Writer

When a beauty salon business closed one of its two salons, an employee who worked at the closed business had her employment terminated. The employer did not offer a transfer to the remaining salon, and the Fair Work Commission (FWC) found that she was dismissed and covered by the general protection provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

 

Facts of case

The closed salon was located at Wynyard (Sydney CBD) and the other one at North Sydney, about 5km away. The salon had to close because the site was to be redeveloped.

The employee had worked at both sites, but mainly at Wynyard. Her employment met the definition of “regular casual”.

The employer terminated her employment, claiming that the salon closure was caused by circumstances beyond its control. It also claimed that because she was a casual employee, her employment had simply come to an end. However, there was a formal termination process that set a specific termination date. That overrode her “casual employee” status. She received two weeks’ notice, but after working a few more days she provided a medical certificate stating she was unfit for work up to the scheduled termination date – again emphasising the point that termination was at the employer’s initiative.

The employer never offered her the option of redeployment to its other salon, although she had worked there before and the salons were not far apart. The FWC said this amounted to a conscious decision by the employer to terminate employment instead of offering redeployment. It was done without the employee’s agreement.

 

Decision

The FWC concluded that the case involved termination at the initiative of the employer, and the employee was covered by the Act’s general protection provisions.

The case will now be relisted for conference.
 

What this means for employers

Employers who face partial business closures cannot simply dismiss employees (even “regular casual” ones) without first considering possible alternative employment within their business. This applies even if the closure is for reasons beyond the employer’s control.

While external business pressures may justify terminating employment, this does not automatically prevent it from being an employer-initiated dismissal. The decision-making process and the possible availability of alternative employment take precedence over the external pressures.

 

Read the judgment

Ms Fatemeh Ashoory Savadkoohy v Golden Pacific Partners Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 2345 | Fair Work Commission