the Applicant v Hyundai Rotem Company
Citation: [2026] FWC 1104
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant initiated a general protections application claiming adverse action by Hyundai Rotem Company following his dismissal. the Applicant, through his company Movement Engineering Pty Ltd, provided consultancy services to Hyundai Rotem from July 2023 under a Consultancy Agreement. The agreement outlined his role as an Electrical Engineer with a daily rate and specified the scope of work and location in Brisbane. Amendments to the agreement extended the term and increased his daily rate. In March 2025, the Applicant received information about changes to the Fair Work Act and was provided with an 'Opt Out Notice' template.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission Deputy President found that the Applicant was a contractor, not an employee of Hyundai Rotem Company. The Commission upheld the jurisdictional objection raised by the Respondent. This finding was based on the Consultancy Agreement, which clearly defined the relationship as one between a company and a consultant. the Applicant signed an opt-out notice complying with s.15AB of the Act, meaning s.15AA does not apply. Consequently, the general protections application was dismissed.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure contracts accurately reflect the intended working relationship, clearly distinguishing between employees and contractors. Providing information about legislative changes and offering opt-out notices can help demonstrate a genuine contractor arrangement. Maintaining detailed records of contractual agreements is crucial in defending against claims.
What it means for employees
Employees considering engaging through a company need to understand the implications of being classified as a contractor, including potential limitations on workplace protections. Seeking independent legal advice before signing contracts and opt-out notices is recommended.
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/2026fwc1104.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 →