Skip to main content
FWCFair Work Commission · 2026

the Applicant v Stay In The Fight Boxing Australia Pty Ltd

Citation: [2026] FWC 2336

At a glance

Employees affected
1

What happened

the Applicant claims he was unfairly dismissed from his employment with Stay In The Fight Boxing Australia Pty Ltd (SITF). Initially, the application named Masters Training Centre Australia Pty Ltd as the employer due to confusion between the two entities. the Applicant alleges a sham contracting arrangement and that he performed duties consistent with an employee, including gym cleaning and member sign-up. He was verbally abused by the Respondent, who then dismissed him via a WhatsApp message after concerns were raised about training methods. SITF initially argued the Applicant was an independent contractor.

What was decided

The Fair Work Commission found that the Applicant was indeed an employee of SITF and his dismissal was unfair. The Commissioner criticised the conduct of the Respondent, finding him to be rude and unreliable. the Respondent failed to provide adequate reasons for the termination or comply with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code (SBFDC). There was no signed contractor agreement and the Commission found that the nature of the engagement was consistent with an employment relationship.

What it means for employers

Employers, particularly small businesses, must ensure accurate record-keeping regarding employee versus contractor classifications. Clear contracts are essential. Proper procedures for dismissal, including providing reasons and opportunities to respond, are crucial, especially when dealing with performance concerns. Human resources support is vital to manage employment issues effectively.

What it means for employees

Employees should be aware of their rights and seek clarification if unsure about their classification (employee vs contractor). Keep records of tasks performed and communications received from the employer. If dismissed, gather evidence to support a claim of unfair dismissal or sham contracting.

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.

unfair-dismissalsham-contractinggeneral-protectionspenalty-ratesmodern-award-variation

Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:

https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc2336.pdf

Want 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 this week sorted? A 7-Day Pass is 50 questions over 7 days, no account. Get a 7-Day Pass — $14.99

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

All cases