the Applicant v Category 5 Labour Management Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 3255
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was employed as a casual Boilermaker by Category 5 Labour Management Pty Ltd from September 2025. On May 3, 2026, he was removed from a BHP project site at BHP’s request. Category 5 stated his employment hadn't ended and they would seek other placements. Despite this, the Applicant felt he had no option but to lodge an unfair dismissal claim. Category 5 continued to offer him alternative roles, including one at Roy Hill, which he declined after accepting another position. the Applicant initially sought to bring a general protections claim under the Fair Work Act.
What was decided
the Commission found the Applicant was not dismissed by Category 5 Labour Management Pty Ltd. The Commission stated his removal from the BHP site was not a termination of employment, as Category 5 continued to seek alternative work for him. The application under section 365 of the Fair Work Act, which deals with dismissal claims, was therefore dismissed. The Commission noted the Applicant’s employment relationship with Category 5 remained intact.
What it means for employers
Employers using labour hire arrangements should document clearly when a worker's placement with a client ends. Maintaining communication with the worker and actively seeking alternative placements can demonstrate the continued existence of the employment relationship. This can help avoid claims of unfair dismissal.
What it means for employees
Employees should carefully consider whether their employment has genuinely ended before lodging a dismissal claim. A temporary removal from a work site, followed by efforts to find alternative work, may not constitute a dismissal.
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/2026fwc3255.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