the Applicant v Murray Cod Australia Limited
Citation: [2026] FWC 2734
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was employed by Murray Cod Australia Limited as a Senior Aquaculture Technician from April 29, 2025. She was summarily dismissed on November 5, 2025, for serious misconduct related to damage to a company vehicle and her alleged failure to report it. The incident occurred on October 30, 2025, when the Applicant used the vehicle. CCTV footage showed damage after she used it. She initially denied knowledge of the damage but later appeared to acknowledge she may have caused it without realizing. A formal investigation meeting was held where CCTV footage was reviewed.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found the Applicant’s dismissal unfair and awarded compensation. The Deputy President noted that while there was damage, the evidence didn't definitively prove the Applicant caused it or acted dishonestly. Procedural fairness concerns were raised due to not being shown CCTV footage beforehand. While Murray Cod Australia Limited argued for consistency in disciplinary action, the Commission found the dismissal disproportionate given her work history and the circumstances.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure investigations are thorough and procedurally fair, including providing employees with relevant evidence before meetings. Consider mitigating factors when determining disciplinary actions, especially for long-term employees with good records. Consistency in treatment of similar incidents is important but each case must be assessed on its own merits.
What it means for employees
Employees have the right to a fair investigation process and should raise concerns about procedural fairness if they feel it hasn't been followed. It’s important to document any inconsistencies or mitigating factors that might affect the outcome of disciplinary proceedings.
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/2026fwc2734.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. 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 today sorted? A Day Pass is 25 questions over 24 hours, no account. Get a Day Pass — $4.99
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