Alisha Tepe v John Normyle Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 3732

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394—Unfair dismissal Alisha Tepe v John Normyle Pty Ltd (U2025/12474) COMMISSIONER MCKINNON SYDNEY, 5 DECEMBER 2025 Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – whether dismissed – whether employee of the Respondent [1] On 31 July 2025, Ms Tepe applied for an unfair dismissal remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act (Cth) (the Act) in relation to her alleged employment with John Normyle Pty Ltd (John Normyle). Under s.394 of the Act, a person who has been ‘dismissed’ may apply to the Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy. John Normyle objects to the application because it says Ms Tepe was not its employee and could not have been dismissed by John Normyle. It further says that the work relationship in question was between Ms Tepe and another entity, Noff Haus Studios Pty Ltd (Noff Haus). [2] The question is whether Ms Tepe was employed by John Normyle, and the answer is ‘No’. The relevant contractual relationship was between Ms Tepe and Noff Haus. She cannot have been dismissed by John Normyle. Relevant facts [3] On 7 November 2025, in a separate decision dealing with extension of time,1 I made the following findings in the matter: “[4] Ms Tepe worked under a ‘Consultant Contract’ with James Andrew Oulianoff t/a Noff Haus Studios from 13 June 2023. Mr Oulianoff registered the business known as Noff Haus Studios Pty Ltd on 14 December 2023. On 29 May 2025, Ms Tepe entered into a further ‘Independent Contractor Agreement’ with Noff Haus Studios Pty Ltd. Work performed in connection with these contracts was based at 94 William St, Paddington NSW. Mr John Normyle is the owner of the building. He also works from the building in his own business (and the respondent to this proceeding), John Normyle Pty Ltd. Ms Tepe says she worked for both Mr Oulianoff and Mr Normyle. 1 Tepe v John Normyle Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 3348 [2025] FWC 3732 DECISION -- 1 of 4 -- [2025] FWC 3732 2 [5] On 3 July 2025, Mr Oulianoff approached Ms Tepe and told her that she was no longer required there. He said, ‘John doesn’t want to work with you’. Ms Tepe said that she wanted to ‘hear it from John’. Mr Normyle then spoke to Ms Tepe and said, ‘I don’t want to work with you’. [6] Ms Tepe could not believe what she was hearing. She said that there was a pre- arranged meeting scheduled to commence shortly downstairs, and that she would be waiting downstairs. She then went downstairs (it seems, alone). When the meeting eventually proceeded, it did not go well. Mr Normyle ended up walking away. Ms Tepe discovered later that day that her computer had been locked. She asked for access to finish up her paperwork and this was agreed. She spent some time that afternoon collecting information from the computer that she thought she might need. Ms Tepe did not work for either Mr Normyle or Mr Oulianoff again. [7] On 4 July 2025, Ms Tepe attended the office building and announced that she was there to get her ‘stuff’. Mr Oulianoff asked for her keys to the building, but she refused to hand them over on the basis that they belonged to Mr Normyle as the building owner. [8] On 10 July 2025, Ms Tepe attended the office building again to discuss payment of her final invoices, hand over the keys and request a reference. Ms Tepe considered this to be the date that her relationship with Mr Normyle came to an end. [9] I find that the arrangement as between Ms Tepe, John Normyle and Noff Haus Studios Pty Ltd came to an end on 3 July 2025. …” Consideration [4] It is not necessary to decide, for the purpose of dealing with the jurisdictional objection, the precise nature of the contractual relationship between Ms Tepe and Noff Haus. Noff Haus is not a party to the proceeding and has not had the opportunity to be heard on the question. I simply observe, without deciding, that the evidence points more likely in the direction of a contract of employment having regard to the revised meaning of ‘employee’ in s.15AA of the Act. [5] To this end, two separate ‘consultant’ contracts in evidence describe the terms of the engagement. The first is dated 13 June 2023 (at the time of Ms Tepe’s engagement) and is for the position of ‘Architectual[sic]/Office Assistant’. In summary, the contract provides for: 1. a one month probationary period; 2. Ms Tepe to report to Mr Oulianoff; 3. specified hours of work which could only be varied by agreement, although Ms Tepe could be required to work additional hours at the request of Noff Haus; 4. a requirement to follow lawful and reasonable instructions of Noff Haus and to maintain any necessary qualifications or memberships for her role; 5. a requirement to act in the interests of Noff Haus at all times and be restrained from engaging in any other employment or business similar to or in competition with Noff Haus, or which could impair her ability to act in its best interests; -- 2 of 4 -- [2025] FWC 3732 3 6. a ‘post-employment restraint’ limiting her ability to work in a similar role within a 5 km radius for 12 months after her “employment is terminated”; 7. payment on the basis of an hourly rate to be invoiced weekly to Noff Haus (Noff Haus paid Ms Tepe’s invoices and on-billed its clients for her work at higher rates); 8. Ms Tepe to be responsible for her own superannuation and tax requirements; 9. Noff Haus to provide training; 10. an entitlement to unpaid leave on reasonable notice, and 11. all intellectual property ‘conceived, suggested, made or developed by’ Ms Tepe while engaged by Noff Haus and connected to her work for Noff Haus to belong to it. [6] The second ‘Independent Contractor Agreement’ dated 29 May 2025 is in similar terms in relation to performance and duties, although the role description is Town Planner. There is no provision for probation, and more specificity as to working hours (four days per week, 9am – 5pm or as otherwise agreed). The hourly rate is $125 per hour, to be paid within 14 (7) days of invoice. Ms Tepe is to provide all necessary tools, equipment, and materials unless otherwise agreed, and there is a confidentiality agreement. Termination can occur by either party at any time, upon which Ms Tepe is to be paid for all services rendered up to the date of termination. Again, intellectual property is vested in Noff Haus. The agreement is signed by Mr Oulianoff on behalf of Noff Haus and by Ms Tepe as ‘the Contractor’. [7] In practice, Ms Tepe sometimes undertook work for others, but this was approved by Noff Haus. Otherwise, she took direction from Noff Haus and worked alongside Mr Oulianoff and Mr Normyle, using equipment provided in the premises. She relied on the arrangement for the large majority of her work and income. [8] There is scant evidence of a contractual relationship between Ms Tepe and John Normyle at the time Ms Tepe says she was dismissed. There is no written contract. Although oral contract has been suggested, there is no evidence as to what the terms of that contract might be. The only reference in a written contract to an arrangement with John Normyle appears in the contract dated 29 May 2025, where reference is made to Ms Tepe’s ‘reporting’ line (reporting to, and taking direction, from Noff Haus, and in its absence, from Mr John Normyle of John Normyle). This was included at Ms Tepe’s request. Mr Normyle is not a party to the contract. [9] Ms Tepe worked in the same office space as John Normyle (which is where the business of Noff Haus was located); worked on projects in which it had a commercial interest (as did Noff Haus); and often followed Mr Normyle’s direction in terms of the work that she performed (where the work of John Normyle and Noff Haus overlapped). Those matters are not decisive as to the existence of a contract of employment between Ms Tepe and John Normyle. [10] On rare occasions, Ms Tepe undertook some work separately for Mr Normyle. In 2023, Ms Tepe worked on a website for John Normyle for which she was paid by John Normyle. In June 2025, Ms Tepe assisted John Normyle with the recruitment of an architect. She invoiced him separately for this work and it was paid by John Normyle. In each case, these arrangements were separate and distinct to her engagement as a Town Planner by Noff Haus. They are insufficient to establish a contract of employment between Ms Tepe and John Normyle at the time of the alleged dismissal on 3 July 2025. -- 3 of 4 -- [2025] FWC 3732 4 [11] Ms Tepe submits that in truth, John Normyle and Noff Haus were both her employer because they operated as an ‘unincorporated joint venture’. This phrase is used on documentation used to pitch and quote for work, and I accept that the two entities worked cooperatively on these activities and described themselves in this way. However, it does not follow that Ms Tepe was employed by both. Her contract was with Noff Haus, and it was under the terms of this contract that she performed her work and was paid. Mr Normyle had an opinion about the appropriateness of the arrangement between Ms Tepe and Noff Haus, but Mr Oulianoff made his own decisions in this regard and acted (and contracted) accordingly. Conclusion [12] I find that Ms Tepe was not employed by John Normyle. She cannot, in those circumstances, have been dismissed by John Normyle. [13] The application is dismissed. COMMISSIONER Appearances: Ms A Tepe on her own behalf. Ms H Mills for the respondent. Hearing details: Sydney: November 26. Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR794559> -- 4 of 4 --