[2025] FWC 2987
Citation: [2025] FWC 2987
What happened
the Applicant sought an unfair dismissal remedy from the Fair Work Commission (FWC) after being dismissed from Cosmetique Cosmetic Clinics (Services) Pty Ltd, the Respondent. The Respondent objected, arguing the Applicant’s annual earnings exceeded the high-income threshold of $175,000. the Applicant held two roles: General Manager (salary below $175,000) and under a ‘Contractor Agreement’ (CA) providing services for invoice. The CA potentially pushed her total earnings over the threshold. the Applicant’s engagements began in November 2021, with the CA commencing in November 2023.
What was decided
The FWC dismissed the jurisdictional objection raised by the Respondent. Deputy President O’Keeffe found the Applicant’s application could proceed. The Commission considered whether the CA represented a contract for services or a contract of service. The decision considered the impact of changes to the Fair Work Act in August 2024, which shifted the focus towards the practical realities of the relationship. The FWC will now assess the CA relationship based on its operation post-August 2024, using s.15AA. The Commission rejected the Respondent’s arguments regarding representation.
What it means for employers
Employers should carefully review the classification of worker relationships, particularly when using contracts alongside employment agreements. The FWC will assess the practical reality of the relationship, not just the labels used in contracts. Ensure arrangements are clearly documented and reflect the actual nature of the work performed and the level of control exercised.
What it means for employees
Employees should be aware of how multiple roles or contracts are assessed for eligibility for Fair Work protections, including the high-income threshold. Understand the practical aspects of your working relationship and how it is structured, as this will be key in determining your employment status.
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/2025fwc2987.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 answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. API + advisor 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 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 →