the Applicant v Toonibal Pty Limited
Citation: [2026] FWC 2774
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
- Awards cited
- MA000157
What happened
the Applicant was employed by Toonibal Pty Limited, operating Nanna’s Homewares and Antiques in Gloucester, as a cook and Store Manager from around 2018. He argued he was a full-time employee, while Toonibal initially claimed he was casual until June 2021. the Applicant was dismissed on January 15, 2026, with Toonibal citing business unprofitability and redundancy. the Applicant alleged dismissal due to work at the local golf club. He filed an unfair dismissal application in February 2026.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found Toonibal was not a ‘small business employer’ due to its association with another entity employing 25 people, rendering the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code irrelevant. While Toonibal argued redundancy, the Commission determined the consultation obligations under the Restaurant Industry Award 2020 were not met. the Applicant's dismissal was deemed unfair and unjust because of a lack of procedural fairness, including insufficient notice and opportunity to respond. Reinstatement was considered inappropriate, and compensation was ordered.
What it means for employers
Employers must accurately assess their employee numbers, considering associated entities, to determine eligibility for small business protections. Failing to comply with consultation obligations under awards or enterprise agreements when making redundancy decisions can lead to findings of unfair dismissal. Even in smaller businesses, providing adequate notice and opportunity for employees to respond is crucial.
What it means for employees
Employees should understand their employment classification (casual vs. full-time) and the protections afforded by relevant awards or agreements. If dismissed, employees have recourse through unfair dismissal applications, particularly if procedural fairness isn’t followed. Employees should document any concerns regarding the reason for dismissal.
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/2026fwc2774.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 →