the Applicant v Southern Cross Centre
Citation: [2026] FWCFB 184
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant appealed a decision made on January 2, 2025, by Deputy President O’Keeffe. The original decision dismissed the Applicant's application for anti-bullying orders against Southern Cross Centre (SCC). Deputy President O’Keeffe found SCC was not a constitutionally covered business and that the Applicant no longer attended the workplace, meaning the application lacked reasonable prospects of success. the Applicant argued SCC *was* a constitutionally covered business, his physical presence wasn't relevant to bullying risk, and he continued to experience bullying.
What was decided
the Fair Work Commission refused the Applicant permission to appeal the earlier decision. The Full Bench found that the Applicant did not present an arguable case of appealable error. They also noted the Deputy President’s finding regarding the lack of bullying risk was well-founded, meaning no anti-bullying order could be made. Crucially, the appeal was filed almost a year and a half late, making it noncompliant with Fair Work Commission Rules. The application was dismissed.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure they understand their constitutional coverage under Fair Work legislation. This case highlights that an employee’s physical presence at a workplace is a factor in bullying applications. Employers must also be aware of strict time limits for appeals and lodging documents with the Fair Work Commission.
What it means for employees
Employees seeking to appeal Fair Work decisions need to adhere to strict timelines, as delays can result in the application being dismissed. The decision emphasizes that physical presence at a workplace is relevant when considering bullying applications.
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/2026fwcfb184.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 →