the Applicant v Seaway HCO Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 601
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was employed by Seaway HCO Pty Ltd as an Import Customer Service Officer from March 2022 until her dismissal on September 2, 2025. Following a period of positive performance, issues arose with the Applicant’s management of the Flexport account under the direction of a manager. This included concerns about invoicing backlogs and adherence to company procedures. A Formal Written Warning was issued in February 2025, which the Applicant challenged. Subsequently, some of her responsibilities were outsourced. In April 2025, a Performance Appraisal rated her as ‘below expectations’ in several areas. Further concerns about workload management and communication led to another meeting in July 2025.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission heard the Applicant's application for unfair dismissal. The Deputy President found that while the Respondent had performance concerns, they did not follow a fair process before dismissing her. The decision stated that the respondent failed to provide adequate support and opportunities for improvement. Therefore, the dismissal was deemed harsh, unjust and unreasonable. The Commission ordered reinstatement and backpay.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure they have a fair process when addressing employee performance issues. This includes providing clear expectations, adequate training and support, and reasonable opportunities to improve before termination. Failing to do so can lead to an unfair dismissal finding.
What it means for employees
Employees facing performance concerns should challenge any perceived unfairness and request clarification and support from their employer. Documenting communication and seeking assistance can be beneficial if a dispute arises.
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/2026fwc601.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. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
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 →