the Applicant v the Respondent
Citation: [2026] FWC 2388
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was employed by the Respondent trading as Worland and Family Lawyers from April 1, 2022, until her resignation on January 23, 2026. From February 2024, the Applicant's wages were paid irregularly, with repeated instances of late or partial payments throughout 2025. She raised concerns about unpaid wages and superannuation in writing and verbally. Approximately $17,521.89 in wages and $11,201.67 in superannuation remained outstanding. the Applicant resigned due to the ongoing payment issues, stating she was forced to do so. She found new employment on February 16, 2026.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission ruled that the Applicant was unfairly dismissed after the Respondent repeatedly failed to pay her wages and superannuation. The Commission found the Applicant's resignation was 'forced' due to the employer’s conduct. Reinstatement was deemed inappropriate, and compensation was ordered. The Commission estimated lost remuneration at $4,143.54 for a three-week period before she would have sought alternative employment.
What it means for employers
Small business owners must prioritize employee wage payments and superannuation obligations. Failure to do so can lead to findings of unfair dismissal and compensation orders. Maintaining proper financial management practices and addressing employee concerns promptly are crucial to avoid legal action.
What it means for employees
Employees facing persistent issues with unpaid wages or superannuation should document these problems and raise them with their employer. If the situation doesn't improve, they may have grounds for an unfair dismissal claim if they resign due to the employer’s conduct.
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/2026fwc2388.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 →