the Applicant v Health First Group Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 1930
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, an Occupational Therapist from South Africa, was recruited by Health First Group Pty Ltd in late 2024 and commenced employment in May 2025 under a 407 Training Visa. She alleged she was unfairly dismissed, but the Respondent argued she resigned voluntarily. the Applicant claimed she lacked adequate structured training and supervision as required for her visa and AHPRA registration. She raised concerns about this with a director, Mr Podbury, who initially reassured her but later stated informal support constituted training. Following these issues, the Applicant resigned on November 17, 2025, after being employed for approximately six months.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant’s application for an unfair dismissal remedy. The Commission found she did not experience a dismissal but rather voluntarily resigned from her employment. the Applicant primarily relied on s.386(1)(b) of the Act to establish a dismissal, however in the alternative submits the termination is a dismissal under s. 386(1)(a) on the basis of repudiation of the contract. The Commission accepted the Respondent’s argument that the Applicant resigned.
What it means for employers
Employers sponsoring employees on training visas must ensure they provide adequate structured training and supervision as per visa requirements and professional registration standards. Failure to do so can lead to disputes over employment conditions and potential legal challenges, even if the employee ultimately resigns.
What it means for employees
Employees on training visas should carefully assess whether their employer is fulfilling its obligations regarding training and supervision. If concerns arise, employees should document these issues and seek advice before resigning from their position.
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/2026fwc1930.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. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.
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.
Just need today sorted? A Day Pass is 25 questions over 24 hours, no account. Get a Day Pass — $4.99
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