Skip to main content
FWCFair Work Commission · 2026

the Applicant v Dedicated Medical Care - Rosebud Pty Ltd

Citation: [2026] FWC 2686

At a glance

Employees affected
1

What happened

the Applicant sought a remedy for unfair dismissal from Dedicated Medical Care - Rosebud Pty Ltd, the respondent. The company is a small business and did not follow the Small Business Dismissal Code. the Applicant was employed for just under three years. She was dismissed following concerns about her conduct on November 7, 2025, related to competence and performance. There was some delay in bringing these concerns to the respondent’s attention.

What was decided

The Fair Work Commission found that the Applicant's dismissal was unfair. While the company had a valid reason for ending her employment, they failed to provide procedural fairness by not allowing her to respond to the reasons for termination or receive prior warnings about performance issues. Reinstatement was deemed inappropriate due to concerns raised by clients and practitioners. The Commission ordered compensation of 16 weeks' pay, reduced to 11 weeks after deductions for earnings and misconduct.

What it means for employers

Small businesses must ensure they provide procedural fairness when dismissing employees, including notifying them of the reasons and allowing a chance to respond. Even without formally following the Small Business Dismissal Code, employers should still adhere to basic principles of fairness and transparency in dismissal processes. Addressing performance concerns with clear warnings is also crucial.

What it means for employees

Employees who believe they have been unfairly dismissed should consider applying to the Fair Work Commission. The commission will assess whether a valid reason existed for the dismissal and if procedural fairness was followed. Even if there's misconduct, compensation may still be awarded.

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.

unfair-dismissalgeneral-protectionspenalty-ratesmisclassificationmodern-award-variationsham-contractinglong-service-leave

Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:

https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc2686.pdf

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

All cases