Skip to main content
FairWorkMate
FWCFair Work Commission · 30 October 2025

[2025] FWC 1574

Citation: [2025] FWC 1574

At a glance

Employees affected
1

What happened

Vivek Singha brought an unfair dismissal claim against Metal Manufactures Pty Limited. The company raised two objections: Mr Singha’s annual earnings exceeded the High Income Threshold ($175,000), and he did not meet the minimum employment period. Mr Singha disputed his annual earnings and claimed the High Income Threshold objection was a distraction. The dismissal occurred on 17 February 2025.

What was decided

The Fair Work Commission dismissed Mr Singha’s unfair dismissal application. Deputy President Boyce upheld the High Income Threshold objection, finding his annual rate of earnings was $200,000 (plus superannuation). The Commission did not need to consider the minimum employment period objection. The company may seek to recover legal costs from Mr Singha.

What it means for employers

Employers should accurately calculate an employee's annual rate of earnings, including salary and benefits, to determine if they are above the High Income Threshold. Failure to do so can lead to unsuccessful jurisdictional objections and potential costs.

What it means for employees

Employees with annual earnings exceeding the High Income Threshold ($175,000) are generally not eligible for unfair dismissal protection. It is important to provide clear and specific evidence to dispute claims about your earnings.

unfair-dismissalgeneral-protectionsmodern-award-variationpenalty-rateslong-service-leavewage-theft

Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:

https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwc1574.pdf

Want more cases like this?

FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The full dataset, with structured fields for awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts, is available through the Business API. FairWork Mate AI answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus.

Individual case summaries on this site are free. API + AI access is a paid product. Contact us for pricing or a 50% off first month.

Get notified on new Fair Work cases

Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.

Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

This summary was drafted by AI from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →

← All cases