Skip to main content
FWCFair Work Commission · 30 December 2025

the Applicant v Highland Whisky Holdings Pty Ltd & Mr Paul Morley and Another

Citation: [2026] FWC 3077

At a glance

Employees affected
1

What happened

the Applicant worked as a casual bar attendant at Highland Whisky Holdings Pty Ltd's Salamanca Whiskey Bar from March 2026 until May 2026. In May 2026, the Applicant used the company's 'Deputy' system to indicate his unavailability for weekend shifts, intending to work Monday to Friday. The company's director, the Respondent, interpreted this as the Applicant no longer wanting the position and sent a text message stating as much. Following a phone conversation where the Respondent claimed the Applicant said he wanted to do house painting and wouldn't return for future shifts, the Applicant was removed from the 'Deputy' system.

What was decided

The Fair Work Commission determined that the Applicant was dismissed by Highland Whisky Holdings Pty Ltd, not that he resigned. The Commission found that the Respondent's message indicating the Applicant no longer wanted the position constituted a dismissal, even for a casual employee. The Commission dismissed the respondent’s objection that the Applicant resigned. The matter can now proceed to address the original application concerning contraventions involving dismissal.

What it means for employers

Employers should be cautious about interpreting employee unavailability as a resignation, particularly with casual employees. Clear communication is essential when addressing employee requests for changes to work schedules. Misinterpreting employee actions can lead to unfair dismissal claims.

What it means for employees

Employees should document any communication regarding changes to work availability and be aware that employers' interpretations of their actions can have significant consequences.

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.

unfair-dismissalgeneral-protectionscasual-conversionpenalty-ratesmodern-award-variationenterprise-agreementsham-contractinglong-service-leave

Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:

https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc3077.pdf

Want 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.

Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.

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

All cases