the Applicant v Westpac Banking Corporation
Citation: [2026] FWC 2711
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant worked as a Home Finance Manager at Westpac Banking Corporation for almost 20 years, from December 2005 to September 2025. He was dismissed after an investigation found he accepted payments from customers without declaring conflicts of interest, did not follow responsible lending practices, and used WhatsApp on his work phone for work activities. The investigation stemmed from prior investigations in 2016, 2019, and 2022 into the Applicant's conduct. Westpac’s Mortgage Origination Investigations Unit (MOIU) had been monitoring his lending practices. He responded to allegations but did not provide evidence regarding improper payments.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that the Applicant was not unfairly dismissed. The Commission considered whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable and concluded it wasn't. While the Applicant was protected from unfair dismissal due to his length of service and coverage by an enterprise agreement, the Commission noted inconsistencies in his responses during the investigation and a failure to provide evidence supporting his claims. Westpac’s actions were deemed reasonable given the seriousness of the allegations.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure thorough investigations are conducted when serious misconduct is alleged, including providing employees with opportunities to respond and access relevant information. Maintaining records of communication and responses is crucial. Consistent application of workplace policies and procedures is important for fairness and legal defensibility.
What it means for employees
Employees facing disciplinary action have the right to respond to allegations and seek support. However, failing to provide adequate evidence or demonstrating inconsistencies in statements can weaken a claim of unfair dismissal. Understanding company policies regarding communication tools like WhatsApp is essential.
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/2026fwc2711.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 →