the Applicant v ISS Integrated Services Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 830
What happened
the Applicant was employed by ISS Integrated Services Pty Ltd as a Water Treatment Plant Operator at Saraji Mine in Queensland since October 2020. In March 2025, ISS informed employees about an open tender for their services contract with BHP Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA). Following the tender process, another company won the contract, and ISS’s services were to end on August 31, 2025. the Applicant was on leave when this occurred. He received a letter stating his employment would cease unless he accepted redeployment. ISS offered three FIFO roles in Perth but the Applicant was unsuccessful in obtaining one and subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant’s application for an unfair dismissal remedy. Deputy President Lake found that a jurisdictional objection, regarding whether a genuine redundancy existed, had been upheld. The Commission determined ISS no longer required the Applicant's role due to the loss of the BMA contract and that this met the requirements under section 389(1) of the Fair Work Act. The Commission did not consider the merits of the unfair dismissal claim.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure they can demonstrate a genuine redundancy if relying on this as a reason for termination. This includes showing that the role is genuinely no longer needed due to operational changes, and not simply transferring work to other employees or contractors. The decision highlights the importance of adhering to consultation obligations outlined in enterprise agreements or modern awards.
What it means for employees
Employees should carefully review any redundancy notices and understand their rights regarding consultation and redeployment opportunities. If an employee believes a redundancy is not genuine, they can challenge this during a Fair Work Commission process.
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/2026fwc830.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 →