the Applicant v Birchan Pty Ltd Trading As Vic’s Premium Quality Meats
Citation: [2026] FWC 2899
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant brought an unfair dismissal claim against Birchan Pty Ltd Trading As Vic’s Premium Quality Meats. She alleged she was unfairly dismissed and had previously signed an employment contract in June 2022, including an Individual Flexibility Agreement (IFA). The IFA stipulated an ‘Above Award Base Salary’ of $70,000 annually. the Applicant received $30,704.42 in salary payments during a six-month period and $3633.44 in workers' compensation payments. She sought compensation of $35,000.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found the Applicant was unfairly dismissed by Birchan Pty Ltd Trading As Vic’s Premium Quality Meats. the Respondent initially raised jurisdictional objections which were subsequently dismissed. The Commission accepted the Applicant's calculations and ordered the respondent to pay her $35,000 less applicable taxation. the respondent did not provide any submissions regarding compensation.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure employment contracts and Individual Flexibility Agreements comply with Fair Work legislation and award conditions. Failure to respond to requests for information from the Commission can negatively impact outcomes in dispute resolution processes.
What it means for employees
Employees who believe they have been unfairly dismissed should lodge a claim with the Fair Work Commission. Providing clear and detailed calculations of lost income is important when seeking compensation.
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/2026fwc2899.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 →