the Applicant v the Respondent
Citation: [2026] FWC 3098
What happened
the Applicant, a pharmacy assistant, commenced employment in January 2026, approximately 16 weeks pregnant. Discussions occurred regarding maternity leave, with differing accounts of the specifics. the Applicant lodged a general protections dispute in June 2026. She sent a request for maternity leave approval and then an email confirming her leave. Following this, she was removed from a work WhatsApp group. A letter regarding underpayment claims was also sent. On 7 June 2026, the Applicant received correspondence stating she didn’t meet parental leave eligibility and was invited to discuss future opportunities.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found the Applicant was dismissed from her employment. the Respondents raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing she wasn’t dismissed. The Commission determined that, for a general protections dispute to proceed, a dismissal must have occurred. The Commission rejected the Respondents’ objection and proceeded to consider the merits of the general protections claim.
What it means for employers
Employers should document agreements regarding maternity leave, including dates, to avoid disputes. Communication regarding eligibility for unpaid parental leave should be clear and timely. Failing to do so can lead to claims of unfair dismissal or general protections breaches.
What it means for employees
Employees should keep records of agreements made with employers, including emails and messages, regarding maternity leave. If an employer’s actions contradict previous assurances, seek clarification in writing.
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/2026fwc3098.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, nothing to cancel.
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