Lawyer who slept in office fails to appeal FWC decision

A regional lawyer who claims that she was forced to quit because she was living in her law firm’s office has appealed a Fair Work decision.

Yolande Dubow, a solicitor who claims to have 40 years of experience, has failed to appeal a Fair Work decision to not hear her complaint that she was forced out of East Coast Law for sleeping in the office.

A senior solicitor at the firm allowed Dubow to stay at the firm for two nights when she was experiencing housing difficulties for herself and her cats, but on the condition that it would only be for two nights.

When asked what other arrangements had been made, Dubow responded: “Would you like me to resign as at 31 January or wait until 15 February for your leave? The situation is untenable and I am on a lot of pain killers and not making any money.”

The firm accepted her resignation.

In early May, Fair Work Commission deputy president Tony Saunders did not extend the time to allow Dubow to argue for unfair dismissal and considered her claim “to be a weak one”.

On appeal, Dubow said the application should not have been dismissed because “insufficient weight” was placed on Dubow’s difficulties in locating accommodation and because the fact she was bankrupt and homeless meant she had “exceptional circumstances”.

Dubow added there were “unusual circumstances of litigation and injury preventing further challenge to dismissal” within the time frame of 21 days and there were “exceptional circumstances that a senior lawyer … without accommodation being terminated whilst injured”.

She also raised “broad concerns about the legal system and society”, was upset about mentions of a non-existent “farm”, and said there were “irrelevant” references to her many animals.

Deputy president Amber Millhouse, deputy president Tony Slevin, and commissioner Stephen Crawford said the appeal grounds “were all raised by Dubow” in the original proceedings and it was “clear” Saunders considered all these issues in his decision.

They found Dubow’s notice of appeal and outline of submissions do not identify any legitimate errors in Saunders’ decision.

Dubow’s argument that there was public interest in her case also failed.

“The appeal does not raise any genuine issue of law, principle, or wider application, but rather turns upon its own facts.

“While Dubow has identified some legitimate issues that impact the public, such as a lack of affordable accommodation, the identification of these issues does not make it in the public interest to grant permission for an appeal where no arguable case of appealable error has been identified,” Millhouse, Slevin and Crawford determined.