the Applicant v Department of Transport and Planning & the Respondent and Another
Citation: [2026] FWC 2312
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
- Awards cited
- MA000023
What happened
the Applicant was employed by the Department of Transport and Planning as Manager Supply Chain Performance from October 2018. In June 2025, following feedback from a co-worker and his colleague regarding her management style, a decision was made to temporarily move a Project Officer reporting to the Applicant to another team with a different manager. This change was communicated to the Applicant in a meeting attended by a witness and the Respondent. The Applicant felt the changes were demeaning and based on unsubstantiated feedback. She subsequently lodged an application under section 365 of the Fair Work Act, alleging her termination contravened workplace rights.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that the Applicant was not dismissed from her employment. The Commissioner determined a jurisdictional objection raised by the Department of Transport and Planning was upheld because she had to be 'dismissed' to bring a general protections claim. Because the Applicant’s employment did not end, her application under s 365 was rejected.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure that any changes to an employee's role or reporting lines are carefully considered and communicated transparently. It is crucial to have documented evidence supporting performance concerns and provide employees with opportunities to respond before implementing significant changes. Failing to do so can lead to legal challenges, even if the employee’s employment continues.
What it means for employees
Employees should document any feedback received from their employer and seek clarification on any changes to their role or reporting lines. If an employee believes their workplace rights have been breached, it is important to understand the requirements for bringing a claim under the Fair Work Act, including the definition of 'dismissal'.
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/2026fwc2312.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 →