the Applicant v National Trust of Australia (Tasmania)
Citation: [2026] FWC 1919
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was employed as Managing Director of the National Trust of Australia (Tasmania) on a fixed-term contract from March 2023, ending March 6, 2025. His employment ended January 30, 2025. The Trust decided not to renew his contract due to concerns about his financial literacy, governance responsibilities, and relationship management with the Board and stakeholders. the Applicant was informed of this decision in a meeting on January 30, 2025, and received an 'end of employment' letter. He sought a finding of unfair dismissal.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that the Applicant was unfairly dismissed. However, no remedy was ordered because his fixed-term contract had expired, and he had already been paid out for the period between his dismissal date and the contract expiry. The Commission noted that while the Applicant sought reinstatement, this wasn't feasible due to the expired contract. The Trust conceded jurisdiction over the unfair dismissal application.
What it means for employers
Employers, particularly small businesses, must adhere to the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code when dismissing employees. Even if an employer believes performance issues exist, a clear and documented process is crucial. The Commission considered whether the Trust complied with the code despite not initially raising it as a defence.
What it means for employees
Employees should be aware of their rights regarding unfair dismissal claims, even in fixed-term contract situations. While remedies may be limited when a contract expires, seeking a finding of unfair dismissal can still be valuable.
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/2026fwc1919.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 →