the Applicant v The Little Unicorn On Honeysuckle Pty Limited
Citation: [2026] FWC 2922
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
- Awards cited
- MA000432
What happened
the Applicant was employed by The Little Unicorn On Honeysuckle Pty Ltd as a Nursery Support Educator from February 2025 until her dismissal on March 6, 2026. She initially worked casually before transitioning to part-time employment averaging 22.3 hours per week. The company informed the Applicant of her redundancy via email and letter, stating the position was no longer required due to operational needs. She received no severance package or outstanding wages. A job advertisement for a similar role appeared four days after her dismissal. The Little Unicorn did not file any documents in response to the unfair dismissal application.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found the Applicant’s dismissal was unfair because The Little Unicorn failed to demonstrate a genuine redundancy. They provided insufficient evidence regarding operational changes or why the Applicant's role was no longer needed. The company also did not comply with consultation obligations under the Children’s Services Award 2010. Compensation was awarded to the Applicant. The Little Unicorn did not appear at the hearing and had taken little part in proceedings.
What it means for employers
Employers must provide clear evidence of operational changes when claiming a redundancy. Failure to do so, along with neglecting consultation obligations outlined in relevant awards or enterprise agreements, can lead to findings of unfair dismissal and compensation orders. Responding to Fair Work Commission applications is crucial for presenting the employer's case.
What it means for employees
Employees dismissed via redundancy should seek clarification on the reasons behind the decision and ensure their employer follows proper procedures as outlined in relevant awards or agreements. If unsure, seeking legal advice can help determine if a dismissal was genuinely due to redundancy.
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/2026fwc2922.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 →