Qube Ports Pty Ltd v the Applicant
Citation: [2026] FWCFB 157
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 150
What happened
the Applicant was employed as a stevedore at Qube Ports Pty Ltd from 2009 until his termination on January 15, 2025. The dismissal followed allegations of inappropriate workplace conduct, including showing photos of coworkers and making offensive remarks. A formal warning was issued in April 2024, stating further misconduct could lead to termination. Approximately 180 employees work at the Port of Melbourne site, with around 150 being stevedores. the Applicant lodged an unfair dismissal application which was initially dealt with by the Commissioner.
What was decided
The Full Bench refused permission to appeal a decision finding the Applicant’s dismissal harsh and unreasonable. The original decision found Qube Ports had a valid reason for the dismissal, relating to showing inappropriate photos in the workplace. However, the process of dismissal was deemed unfair. the Commissioner ordered reinstatement and restoration of lost pay, with discussions about the amount to follow. The Full Bench determined no arguable error existed in the initial findings that warranted overturning the original decision.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure a fair and thorough investigation process when dealing with employee misconduct allegations. A final written warning should clearly outline potential consequences of further inappropriate behaviour, but it doesn't guarantee dismissal if the process is flawed. Employers need to consider whether disciplinary action aligns with company policies and values.
What it means for employees
Employees have rights regarding fair treatment during workplace investigations and dismissals. If an employee believes they were unfairly dismissed, they can apply for a remedy through the Fair Work Commission. It's important to understand your rights and seek support if facing disciplinary action or termination.
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/2026fwcfb157.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 →