the Applicant v Avada Traffic Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2407
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant worked for Avada Traffic Pty Ltd. In December 2025, he called in sick and was subsequently removed from a client crew. He received an email stating his removal was due to a client request and that he had allegedly made disparaging remarks about the job. The company offered him alternative work but communication broke down. the Applicant claimed a loss of income of $85,000 and alleged termination. Avada Traffic Pty Ltd maintained he remained an employee with available work and denied any dismissal.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant’s unfair dismissal application. The Deputy President found he was not dismissed by Avada Traffic Pty Ltd as the company's communication indicated ongoing employment and offered alternative work. Even if a reduction in shifts constituted a dismissal, the application was lodged out of time, with no exceptional circumstances to extend the deadline. the Applicant argued he didn’t know he had been dismissed but this contradicted his claim that he knew he was removed from site.
What it means for employers
Employers should maintain clear communication regarding employment status and available work. Documenting all offers of alternative roles is important. Responding promptly to employee concerns, even if those concerns are unfounded, can help avoid disputes. Failing to do so may be interpreted as a dismissal.
What it means for employees
Employees should communicate clearly with their employer about any issues or concerns. If unsure about employment status, seek clarification directly from the employer. Be mindful of deadlines for lodging applications with the Fair Work Commission and gather evidence promptly.
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/2026fwc2407.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