Appeal by Michael Bernard Shulman,Appeal by James Vincent Dickson
Citation: [2026] FWC 3313
What happened
Michael Shulman and James Dickson, employees of Stannards Accountants and Advisors Pty Limited, appealed decisions made by a Fair Work Commission delegate. Shulman’s registration as an auditor was cancelled, and Dickson’s was suspended for three years. These decisions stemmed from findings that both failed to carry out their duties as auditors for the Health Services Union Victoria No 1 Branch (HSU Branch). They sought to stay these decisions pending their appeals. Both argued the decisions would cause reputational and financial damage.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission refused to grant stay orders to Michael Shulman and James Dickson. The Commission found that while their appeals had an arguable case and reasonable prospects of success, the balance of convenience did not favour a stay. The Commission considered the public interest in maintaining confidence in registered organisation audits and the potential risk of undetected governance failings if the stays were granted. The Commission also noted the appellants did not disclose the extent of auditing work they would undertake if stays were granted.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure their auditors are competent and adhere to professional standards. The Commission’s decision highlights the importance of maintaining public confidence in auditing processes and the potential consequences of failing to do so. Employers relying on audit services should review the qualifications and performance of their auditors.
What it means for employees
Employees acting as auditors should be aware of their duties and responsibilities under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act. Failure to fulfil these duties can result in serious consequences, including cancellation or suspension of registration. Employees should understand the potential impact of adverse findings on their professional reputation and career.
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/2026fwc3313.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