[2025] FWC 2133
Citation: [2025] FWC 2133
What happened
Mohamed Shehata was dismissed from his role as a General Services Officer at the Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate in August 2024. The dismissal stemmed from an allegation that he misappropriated a pink bag found on a bus. Mr Shehata denied the allegation, claiming he placed the bag in a lost property bin. A report from the Professional Standards Unit (PSU) concluded there was sufficient evidence to suggest he had misappropriated the bag. Mr Shehata had worked for the Respondent for over 20 years with a previously unblemished record. He also alleged a colleague, Mr Herrero, had made discriminatory remarks towards him.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found Mr Shehata’s dismissal was unfair and ordered his reinstatement. The Commission was not satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Shehata had misappropriated the bag. The Deputy President considered the length of Mr Shehata’s service, his previously unblemished record, and the circumstances surrounding the incident, including a stressful call about his son. The Commission noted the lack of CCTV footage showing Mr Shehata placing the bag in the lost property bin and the absence of the bag from lost property records. The Deputy President also considered Mr Shehata’s claim of a strained relationship with Mr Herrero.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure investigations into misconduct are thorough and consider all available evidence. They should also consider the employee's length of service and previous work history when making dismissal decisions. The Commission emphasized the need to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that misconduct occurred before dismissing an employee.
What it means for employees
Employees with a long and positive work history may be afforded greater consideration in dismissal proceedings. It is important to raise any concerns about unfair treatment or discrimination with your employer and document any relevant incidents.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwc2133.pdfWant 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 →