the Applicant v Port Stephens Veterans and Citizens Aged Care Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2484
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 4
What happened
the Applicant was employed as a Lifestyle and Engagement Manager at Port Stephens Veterans and Citizens Aged Care Ltd (Harbourside) from January 6, 2025, until her dismissal on November 21, 2025. Harbourside alleged misconduct towards team members, residents, and her manager led to her termination. the Applicant denied the allegations and claimed unfair dismissal. The Fair Work Commission heard evidence from both the Applicant (represented by her father) and Harbourside staff, including Executive Manager Tamara Honeysett and Activities Officers Katrina Maryvale, Katrina Towler, and Baylee Gertz. Concerns arose regarding a ‘points system’ for activity recording, resident activities levels, and team member resignations.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant's unfair dismissal application. Deputy President Saunders found Harbourside had a valid reason for the dismissal based on substantiated allegations of misconduct including creating an unsafe work environment, failing to follow directions, and compromising resident safety. The Commission accepted evidence from Harbourside’s witnesses over the Applicant’s denials, noting consistency in their accounts and supporting medical evidence and resignations. The application was dismissed.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure they have sufficient evidence to support allegations of serious misconduct before dismissing an employee. Investigations should be thorough, and employees should be given opportunities to respond to concerns. Employers need to consider the impact of their actions on employee wellbeing and follow proper procedures when issuing directions.
What it means for employees
Employees facing disciplinary action or dismissal have the right to challenge the fairness of the process. It's important to gather evidence, seek support, and understand your rights under Australian workplace law. Employees should be aware that simply denying allegations isn’t enough; employers must prove misconduct occurred.
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/2026fwc2484.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 →