[2025] FWCFB 193
What happened
the Applicant made an application under the Fair Work Act alleging bullying at the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). Deputy President Millhouse dismissed his application. The Applicant appealed this decision, and the Full Bench dismissed the appeal. The NDIA and two employees, a co-worker and a colleague, were respondents in the appeal. They sought orders to de-identify their names from the published decisions, arguing that they hadn't been given a chance to defend the allegations and that their reputations were at risk. the Applicant also sought the same de-identification for himself.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission Full Bench dismissed the applications from both the Applicant and the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) to de-identify names from the published decisions. The Commission found there was no basis for the de-identification requests. Deputy President Millhouse had not made an order regarding confidentiality, and the Full Bench was not aware of any request to do so. The Commission emphasized the importance of open justice and noted that mere reputational damage isn't sufficient grounds for non-publication orders. The Commission also highlighted that the decisions didn't make adverse findings against a co-worker and a colleague.
What it means for employers
Employers should be aware that allegations made against employees in Fair Work proceedings are generally subject to public scrutiny. Simply being named in a complaint, even if unsubstantiated, is unlikely to warrant de-identification orders. Employers should ensure they are aware of any requests for confidentiality made during initial proceedings and bring them to the attention of the Full Bench during appeals.
What it means for employees
Employees should understand that while Fair Work proceedings aim to protect workers, they are generally conducted in public. Being named in a complaint doesn't automatically guarantee de-identification. Employees who are subject to allegations should be prepared for potential public exposure, even if the allegations are ultimately dismissed.
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.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
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.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.