the Applicant v the Respondent
Citation: [2026] FWC 3175
What happened
the Applicant worked as a Contact Centre Operator and later a CCVIP for Internet Traffic Solutions Management Pty Ltd (ITSM). He was dismissed on 23 December 2025, following six warnings for issues including lateness, absenteeism, sleeping on the job, and inappropriate online chat. the Applicant sought an unfair dismissal remedy, arguing his dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. the Respondent stated the dismissal was justified due to his performance and conduct. He was initially rostered to work on December 14, 2025, but believed he was on annual leave and did not attend, failing to notify his absence.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant’s application for unfair dismissal. the Commissioner found that while the Applicant was protected from unfair dismissal, his dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The Commission considered the warnings issued to the Applicant and the circumstances surrounding his dismissal, including his failure to attend work on December 14 and his belief he was on annual leave. The Commission noted the Respondent was not a small business employer and the genuine redundancy code did not apply.
What it means for employers
Employers should maintain clear communication regarding employee leave requests and ensure employees understand their rostering schedules. Consistent warnings and documentation of performance issues are crucial before dismissal. Addressing inappropriate online conduct is also important.
What it means for employees
Employees must adhere to work schedules and promptly notify employers of any absences or changes in plans. Understanding and responding to warnings and performance feedback is essential. Misunderstandings about leave can have serious 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.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc3175.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