the Applicant v Cohealth Limited
Citation: [2026] FWC 2629
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was employed by Cohealth Limited as a Community Development Worker from March 2019 until June 2025. He raised concerns regarding disciplinary processes and an investigation related to alleged misconduct, leading to a warning and performance improvement plan (PIP). Following the PIP, he was dismissed. the Applicant, who is also an Australian Services Union delegate, initiated dispute resolution proceedings under an enterprise agreement and filed for unfair dismissal. The case involved witness testimony from both parties, including colleagues and his clinical supervisor.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that while the investigative processes used by Cohealth were not procedurally fair due to a lack of natural justice, the Applicant’s dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The Commission had jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute arising from the enterprise agreement, even after the Applicant's employment ended. An order for production of documents related to an investigation report was initially rejected based on privilege but later overturned.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure investigative processes are fair and provide employees with natural justice, including opportunities to respond to allegations. Claims of legal professional privilege should be carefully considered before withholding information that could impact procedural fairness.
What it means for employees
Employees have the right to raise concerns about workplace grievances through dispute resolution procedures outlined in enterprise agreements. Even after employment ends, these processes can still be pursued.
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/2026fwc2629.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