the Applicant v Hotham Operations Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 1981
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was employed as General Manager at Hotham Operations Pty Ltd (Respondent) from August 2024, earning $150,000 annually. He was dismissed on December 22, 2025, via a phone call and letter citing issues with payments to his partner, Mr Ho, and allegations of drug/alcohol-affected staff operating vehicles. The Applicant had arranged for his partner to be employed by the Respondent. A reclassification of Mr Ho's role occurred in June 2025, which the Applicant now acknowledges was incorrect. Following a meeting on December 12, 2025, where performance concerns were raised, the Applicant prepared notes and documentation outlining various operational issues. The Applicant subsequently secured employment at $125,000.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found the Applicant’s dismissal was unjust and unreasonable. the Commissioner noted discrepancies between the reasons given in the termination letter and what was communicated during the phone call. The Respondent failed to provide evidence of audits mentioned. While the Applicant made errors regarding his partner's classification, he genuinely believed his actions were appropriate at the time. Compensation was ordered, but the amount is not specified in the provided text.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure dismissal reasons are clearly communicated and supported by evidence. Conducting proper investigations and providing employees with an opportunity to respond to concerns before termination is crucial. Failing to do so can lead to findings of unfair dismissal and compensation orders.
What it means for employees
Employees have the right to a fair process before dismissal, including clear communication of reasons and an opportunity to respond. Keeping records of performance and communications can be helpful if a dispute arises.
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/2026fwc1981.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 →