the Applicant v Abbots And Kinney (Unley) Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2611
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant commenced employment with Abbots and Kinney (Unley) Pty Ltd in August 2025. She claims she was dismissed on April 1, 2026, after being removed from the rostering app. Abbots contends the Applicant wasn't dismissed but failed to request rostered work. The dispute centres around whether Abbots is a small business employer and if the Applicant met the minimum employment period for unfair dismissal protection.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that Abbots did not provide sufficient evidence to prove it was a small business employer. Consequently, the Applicant had completed more than six months of service, meeting the minimum employment period requirement. The jurisdictional objections regarding the minimum employment period and compliance with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code were dismissed. The case will now proceed to address whether a dismissal occurred and consider its merits.
What it means for employers
Employers must maintain accurate records of employee numbers to determine their status as a small business employer. Failure to provide evidence supporting a jurisdictional objection can lead to it being dismissed, allowing the application to proceed.
What it means for employees
Employees should keep records of their employment dates and any communication regarding termination or changes in work arrangements. If an employer fails to substantiate a jurisdictional objection, it may strengthen your case for pursuing further action.
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/2026fwc2611.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 →