the Applicant v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWCFB 142
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant appealed a Fair Work Commission Deputy President’s decision regarding his unfair dismissal claim against Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd. The original decision found that the Applicant’s dismissal was not unfair. The case was heard in Canberra on 23 February 2026.
What was decided
The Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant’s appeal. They found the Deputy President’s original decision was not wrong. The Full Bench did not consider there were any errors of law or approach in the original decision. The Deputy President had correctly assessed the evidence and applied the relevant legal principles.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure dismissal decisions are carefully considered and documented, demonstrating a fair and objective assessment of the employee’s performance and conduct. Decisions should be consistent with relevant legislation and case law.
What it means for employees
Employees appealing unfair dismissal decisions should be aware that the Full Bench will scrutinise the original decision for errors of law or approach. Appeals are not guaranteed to succeed.
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/document-view/decisions/mr-zain-anwar-v-rasier-pacific-pty-ltd-2026-fwcfb-142Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want 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 this week sorted? A 7-Day Pass is 50 questions over 7 days, no account. Get a 7-Day Pass — $14.99
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