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

the Applicant brought an unfair dismissal claim against Metal Manufactures Pty Limited. the Respondent raised two objections: the Applicant’s annual earnings exceeded the High Income Threshold ($175,000), and he did not meet the minimum employment period. The Applicant 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 the Applicant’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 Respondent may seek to recover legal costs from the Applicant.

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.

Want this applied to your situation?

Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.

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 AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.

Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.

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 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