the Applicant v Heston MRO Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2008
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, a Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, worked for Heston MRO Pty Ltd from May 2023 until his summary dismissal on December 5, 2025. Concerns arose following incidents including inappropriate comments towards female colleagues in June 2023, breaches of aircraft arrival procedures reported by Singapore Airlines in February and March 2025, and a Return to Blocks event in April 2025. Heston MRO also discovered the Applicant was working casual shifts for Virgin Airlines without permission. A meeting occurred on November 6, 2025, regarding this external employment, with requests for documentation which the Applicant did not fully provide by the December 1 deadline.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found the Applicant’s dismissal to be unfair. The Commission considered evidence related to previous concerns and investigations but determined they didn't establish a valid reason for summary dismissal. While Heston MRO raised issues regarding the Applicant's Virgin Airlines work, the Commission noted he had not been told his employment was at risk if documentation wasn't provided. the Commissioner ordered compensation for the Applicant.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure that any disciplinary action is proportionate to the alleged misconduct and that employees are made aware of potential consequences. Relying on past incidents without clear evidence or warnings can be problematic. Employers should also clearly communicate policies regarding external employment and fatigue management.
What it means for employees
Employees have the right to raise concerns about workplace practices, and employers must address these concerns fairly. If an employer raises concerns about employee conduct or external work, employees should seek clarification on potential consequences and ensure they understand any requirements for documentation or compliance.
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/2026fwc2008.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 →