the Applicant v The Hero Corporation Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2546
What happened
the Applicant worked for The Hero Corporation, a marketing agency, under a fixed-term contract starting April 14, 2025, initially expiring May 9, 2025. His contract was extended three times until November 30, 2025. He argues he wasn't dismissed but that his employment involved contraventions of the Fair Work Act related to fixed-term contracts. The Hero Corporation contends he wasn’t ‘dismissed’ and claims an exception applies because the Applicant performed distinct design work requiring specialized skills.
What was decided
The Commission determined whether the Applicant was 'dismissed' for the purposes of a section 365 application under the Fair Work Act. The Commission considered arguments about consecutive fixed-term contracts and exceptions relating to specialised tasks. While acknowledging the Applicant possessed specialized skills, the Commission has not yet reached a final decision on whether the exception applies.
What it means for employers
Employers using fixed-term contracts need to carefully consider the limitations imposed by Division 5 of Part 2-9 of the Fair Work Act, particularly regarding consecutive contracts and the 'specialised task' exception. They should document clearly if work performed is distinct and requires specialized skills not readily available within the business.
What it means for employees
Employees working under fixed-term contracts should be aware of their rights concerning consecutive contracts and potential implications for ongoing employment. If a contract is repeatedly extended, it’s important to understand whether this triggers provisions related to deemed ongoing employment.
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/2026fwc2546.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