the Applicant v Bundaleer Care Operations Limited
Citation: [2026] FWC 2839
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
- Awards cited
- MA000032
What happened
the Applicant was employed by Bundaleer Care Operations Limited from April 2024 until his dismissal on January 23, 2026. The company alleged he consumed alcohol on premises, failed to follow directions regarding alcohol consumption, and incorrectly claimed call-out payments. the Applicant responded to the allegations, denying some claims and stating others were beyond his control. Bundaleer Care Operations Limited subsequently asked him to show cause as to why his employment should not be terminated.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that the Applicant was not unfairly dismissed. The Deputy President considered the evidence presented by both parties, including the Applicant's responses and the company’s investigation findings. The Commission substantiated all three allegations against the Applicant: alcohol consumption on premises, failure to follow directions, and incorrect call-out payment claims. As a result, the application for unfair dismissal was dismissed.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure clear communication of workplace policies, particularly regarding alcohol consumption and reporting procedures. Thorough investigations with opportunities for employees to respond are crucial before termination. Maintaining accurate records of instructions and employee acknowledgements is also important.
What it means for employees
Employees must adhere to company policies and directions. Responding promptly and thoroughly to allegations is essential. Understanding the consequences of workplace misconduct, including potential disciplinary action, is vital.
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/2026fwc2839.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