the Applicant v Department of Education Victoria
Citation: [2026] FWC 2533
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant worked as an Education Support employee at Montmorency South Primary School from January 2021 to October 2023, initially performing duties of a Wellbeing Officer/Counsellor and later also the Mental Health and Wellbeing Coordinator (MHW Coordinator). The MHW Coordinator role required teaching qualifications which the Applicant lacked. She sought reclassification to Education Support Level 1–Range 4, arguing her duties warranted it, while her employer, the Department of Education Victoria, initially classified her as Level 1–Range 3, then later Level 1–Range 3 again. Following a review by the new principal, the Applicant's counselling duties were removed and she was deemed unsuitable for the MHW Coordinator role due to lack of teaching qualifications.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission determined that the dispute regarding the Applicant’s classification should be resolved under both the Victorian Government Schools Agreement 2017 and 2022. The Commission found that, considering her duties during the relevant period, the Applicant *should* have been classified as an Education Support Level 1–Range 4. The decision was based on the unique combination of responsibilities she held, including counselling duties and coordination roles. The Commission noted the unusual circumstances where the Applicant performed these duties without a teaching qualification.
What it means for employers
Employers should carefully assess job descriptions and classifications to ensure they accurately reflect employee duties. Appointing staff to roles requiring specific qualifications (like teaching) without those qualifications carries risk. Regularly reviewing classifications is important, but decisions must be fair and based on objective criteria, not simply removing responsibilities.
What it means for employees
Employees should raise concerns about their classification if they believe it doesn't accurately reflect their duties. Unions can provide support in these situations. Even if an employee lacks a formal qualification, performing duties associated with that role may warrant higher classification.
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/2026fwc2533.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 →