the Applicant v Sambara Fashion Group Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2930
At a glance
- Penalty
- $1,154
- Employees affected
- 5
- Awards cited
- MA000124
What happened
the Applicant was dismissed from Sambara Fashion Group Pty Ltd on February 26, 2026, while she was on annual leave. She had been employed as an administrative and clerical worker since July 1, 2022. The company, a wholesaler of clothing, cited operational reasons for the dismissal due to financial difficulties with an ATO debt. the Applicant raised concerns about her payslips from October 2025. There was no consultation with the Applicant before her dismissal, which occurred via email while she was overseas. Sambara Fashion Group Pty Ltd has five employees including owner a co-worker.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found the Applicant’s dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable. The Commission determined the redundancy was not genuine because there was no consultation with the Applicant as required by the Clerks—Private Sector Award 2020. The small business dismissal code did not apply. Compensation of $1,153.85 (plus superannuation) was ordered to be paid to the Applicant, representing one week’s pay. This compensation accounts for her efforts to find new employment.
What it means for employers
Employers must conduct proper consultation when considering redundancies, as required by modern awards. Failing to consult can invalidate a redundancy claim and lead to costly penalties. Even small businesses need to follow these procedures, even if they lack dedicated HR expertise.
What it means for employees
Employees who believe their dismissal was due to an unfair redundancy should seek legal advice. A failure to properly consult with the employee regarding potential redundancies is a key factor in determining whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
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/2026fwc2930.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 →