the Applicant v Department Of Families, Seniors, Disability Services And Child Safety
Citation: [2026] FWC 2745
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking to resolve a general protections dispute related to her dismissal from the Queensland Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety. The Department objected, arguing it is not a ‘national system employer’ as defined by the Act. the Applicant was employed as a temporary contracts officer.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant's application. Commissioner McKinnon found that Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act, which deals with general protections, does not apply to the Queensland Department because it is not a ‘national system employer’. The decision hinged on the Department’s status as a state government entity and its exclusion from the scope of the referral of powers to the Commonwealth. As such, the Applicant cannot pursue her general protections claim through the Commission.
What it means for employers
Employers, particularly those in public sector roles within State governments, should understand the distinction between ‘national system employers’ and other types of employers under the Fair Work Act. This decision clarifies that certain state government departments are not subject to the general protections provisions of the Act due to the scope of referrals of power.
What it means for employees
Employees of entities like State government departments should be aware that their workplace rights under general protections may differ from those afforded to employees of ‘national system employers’. This means avenues for resolving certain disputes through the Fair Work Commission might not be available.
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/2026fwc2745.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 →