the Applicant v Woolworths Group Limited Trading AS Primary Connect
Citation: [2026] FWCFB 187
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was employed as a storeman at a Woolworths distribution centre in Mulgrave, Melbourne, since 2002, with prior service recognised from his previous employer. From 2022, he experienced frequent absences due to health issues and increased care responsibilities for his son. He received multiple directions from Woolworths requiring notice and supporting documentation for absences. On April 7, 2025, Woolworths issued a letter stating he wasn't meeting job requirements and invited him to respond. His employment was terminated on April 16, 2025. the Applicant appealed the Deputy President’s decision that Woolworths had valid reasons for dismissal.
What was decided
The Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant's appeal against a previous decision finding his dismissal not to be unfair. The original Deputy President found Woolworths had two valid reasons: the Applicant wasn't performing inherent job requirements and repeatedly failed to follow directions regarding absence notifications. Despite the Applicant submitting new evidence relating to a phone call made on March 20, 2025, the Full Bench admitted it but ultimately upheld the initial decision.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure clear communication of expectations regarding attendance and documentation requirements for absences. Consistent application of policies and procedures is crucial, along with providing opportunities for employees to address performance concerns before termination. Thorough record-keeping of communications and employee responses is also important.
What it means for employees
Employees experiencing difficulties impacting their work performance should proactively communicate these issues to their employer and provide supporting documentation where possible. Understanding and complying with workplace policies regarding absence notifications is essential, even when facing personal challenges.
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/2026fwcfb187.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 →