the Applicant v Selcouth Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2415
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
- Awards cited
- MA000011
What happened
the Applicant, a former supervisor at Selcouth Pty Ltd, initiated an unfair dismissal claim under the Fair Work Act. Selcouth objected, arguing the Applicant wasn't protected from unfair dismissal because his employment wasn’t covered by the Mining Industry Award 2020 and his annual earnings exceeded $183,100. the Applicant initially claimed award coverage and lower earnings ($124,278), later withdrawing the award claim but maintaining his income was below the threshold. Selcouth provides industrial cleaning and maintenance services to mining and industrial sectors.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed Selcouth’s jurisdictional objection regarding the Applicant's high income. The Commission found the Applicant’s annual rate of earnings was less than the $183,100 threshold. While he initially argued for award coverage, he later withdrew that claim. The Commission determined his duties did not fall under the Mining Award due to the supervisory nature of his role. The matter will now proceed as an unfair dismissal application.
What it means for employers
Employers should carefully define job roles and responsibilities when assigning titles like 'supervisor' to ensure accurate classification for award coverage and income threshold assessments. Misclassifying employees can lead to costly legal challenges, even if the employee’s actual earnings are below the high-income threshold.
What it means for employees
Employees considering an unfair dismissal claim need to accurately assess their annual rate of earnings, including non-monetary benefits, to determine eligibility. Understanding job classifications and award coverage is crucial for a successful application.
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/2026fwc2415.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 →