the Applicant v Woolworths Group Limited
Citation: [2026] FWCFB 176
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, an employee of Woolworths Group Limited, filed a general protections dismissal dispute application after an incident where he was told to adjust his clothing while working a casual shift on May 14, 2026. He left work early due to the feedback and subsequently lodged the application on May 16, 2026, despite continuing to work shifts afterward. Deputy President dismissed the application, finding the Applicant had not been dismissed and lacked standing. The Applicant appealed this decision.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission Full Bench refused the Applicant permission to appeal Deputy President’s decision. The bench found that the Applicant was notified of the hearing, failed to attend, and did not provide reasons beforehand. They concluded he wasn't denied procedural fairness. The appeal grounds were deemed without merit as key arguments weren't raised initially and there was no evidence of constructive dismissal.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure employees are properly notified of hearings and understand the consequences of failing to attend. This case highlights the importance of following due process, even in situations where an employee’s conduct is questionable. Employers can rely on established procedures when dealing with employees who fail to engage in a fair process.
What it means for employees
Employees must actively participate in Fair Work Commission proceedings by attending hearings and providing relevant information. Failure to do so can result in applications being dismissed, even if there are legitimate concerns about workplace treatment. Employees should communicate any reasons for non-attendance well in advance of scheduled hearings.
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/2026fwcfb176.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 →