[2025] FWC 2133
Citation: [2025] FWC 2133
What happened
the Applicant 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. the Applicant 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. the Applicant had worked for the Respondent for over 20 years with a previously unblemished record. He also alleged a co-worker, his colleague, had made discriminatory remarks towards him.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found the Applicant’s dismissal was unfair and ordered his reinstatement. The Commissioner was not satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Applicant had misappropriated the bag. The Deputy President considered the length of the Applicant’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 the Applicant placing the bag in the lost property bin and the absence of the bag from lost property records. The Deputy President also considered the Applicant’s claim of a strained relationship with his colleague.
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.
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.
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 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 →