the Applicant v Toot Traffic Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2338
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, a casual traffic controller at Toot Traffic Pty Ltd, lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission under section 365 of the Fair Work Act. He claimed issues arose after disclosing his use of medicinal cannabis and subsequent drug testing. The company responded objecting to the application's jurisdiction, stating the Applicant was still employed and hadn’t been dismissed, but could return to work with a negative drug test. Evidence was exchanged, ultimately confirming the Applicant's ability to return to work.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission upheld Toot Traffic Pty Ltd’s objection that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s application. The Commissioner found he had not been dismissed and remained an employee. Consequently, the application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. the Commissioner noted the evidence supported this finding and wasn't further contested.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure they understand jurisdictional requirements when responding to Fair Work applications. This case highlights that an applicant must be dismissed for a s365 application to proceed. Maintaining accurate employment records is crucial in these situations.
What it means for employees
Employees need to be aware of the specific requirements for lodging certain types of Fair Work applications, particularly regarding dismissal. If not genuinely dismissed, an application may lack jurisdiction and be unsuccessful.
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/2026fwc2338.pdfSend your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
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