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.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc2336.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 →