This is an extract from an unfair dismissal case in which the Fair Work Commission determined that the dismissal was unfair but did not cause a material financial loss to the applicant; yet modest compensation was awarded in any event.
“I have made findings in relation to each matter specified in s.387. I must consider and give due weight to each as a fundamental element in determining whether the termination was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.11
[28]
Having considered each of the matters specified in s.387 of the FW Act, I am satisfied that the dismissal of Mr Johnson was unjust and unreasonable because there was a severe lack of procedural fairness afforded by Toonibal. Mr Johnson had worked for the business since around 2018 and there is no dispute he was a hardworking and capable employee. Mr Johnson deserved more than being told he was being made redundant at an informal meeting held without notice on 15 January 2026. I have not identified any factors that weigh against finding that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.
[29]
I find Mr Johnson was unfairly dismissed.
Remedy
[30]
Mr Johnson does not seek reinstatement. I am satisfied reinstatement is inappropriate in this case.
11 ALH Group Pty Ltd t/a The Royal Exchange Hotel v Mulhall (2002) 117 IR 357, [51]. See also Smith v Moore Paragon Australia Ltd PR915674 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Lacy SDP, Simmonds C, 21 March 2002), [92]; Edwards v Justice Giudice [1999] FCA 1836, [6]–[7].
[2026] FWC 2774
6
[31]
The evidence provided by the parties demonstrates that:
•
Mr Johnson did not lose remuneration from the dismissal because he took steps to mitigate his loss and found better-paying employment as a roofer within four weeks of being dismissed. Mr Johnson also performed work at the local golf club before and after his dismissal.
•
Mr Johnson had around 4.5 years of full-time service with Toonibal when he was dismissed on 15 January 2026. I accept Ms Sleap’s evidence that Mr Johnson was a casual employee from 2018 until 28 June 2021. Mr Johnson failed to lead evidence to establish he was not a casual employee during this period.
•
Mr Johnson was paid four weeks as a purported ex gratia redundancy payment when he was dismissed.
•
Given I have found Toonibal was not a “small business employer” when the employees of an associated entity are included, Mr Johnson should have received three weeks of wages in lieu of notice for termination pursuant to s.117 of the FW Act, and eight weeks of redundancy pay pursuant to s.119 of the FW Act. That is a total of 11 weeks’ pay. Mr Johnson only received four weeks’ pay.
•
The viability of Toonibal’s enterprise is likely to be affected by a compensation order. Ms Sleap provided evidence that the business is not profitable and it may not trade in the foreseeable future.
•
Mr Johnson admitted to posting information about his dismissal on social media during the evening on 15 January 2026. I accept Ms Sleap’s evidence that this conduct triggered negative publicity for Toonibal and caused financial damage.
•
Mr Johnson was paid a salary of $65,000.00 per year or $1,250.00 per week from Toonibal.
[32]
After considering the factors identified in s.392 of the FW Act and the unique facts of this case, I consider it is appropriate to order that Toonibal makes a payment equivalent to five weeks of wages to Mr Johnson, plus superannuation. I will provide Toonibal with 28 days to make the payment, given its difficult financial position.”
Johnson v Toonibal Pty Limited [2026] FWC 2774 delivered 23 July 2026 per Crawford C