1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394—Unfair dismissal Emmanuel John Tischler v Avada Traffic Pty Ltd (U2025/14564) COMMISSIONER SIMPSON BRISBANE, 5 MAY 2026 Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – Dismissal not unfair – Application Dismissed. [1] On 7 September 2025, Mr Emmanuel John Tischler (Tischler / the Applicant) applied to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy, alleging he was unfairly dismissed from his employment with Avada Traffic Pty Ltd (the Respondent). [2] I listed the matter for a directions hearing on 16 December 2025. The matter was listed for hearing on 6 February 2026. [3] Mr Tischler appeared at the hearing on his own behalf. The Respondent was represented by Mr Greg Power who was granted leave to appear. It was agreed at the commencement of the proceedings that the matter proceed as a determinative conference rather than as a hearing. [4] The Applicants wife Ms Lolita Tischler filed a Statutory Declaration. Ms Tischler was not required for cross examination, and the Statutory Declaration was admitted into evidence.1 [5] The Applicant did not file a formal witness statement but filed a series of submissions in support of his claim. The submissions were at pages 16 to 20, pages 70 to 72, pages 73 to 78 and pages 91 to 108 of the Court Book. [6] The Respondent relied on statements from Ms Emily White (People and Culture Coordinator),2 and Ms Josephine Payne (Queensland State Manager of People and Culture),3 dated 16 January 2026, for the Respondent. [7] The Applicant was dismissed from his employment on the Respondent’s initiative on 26 August 2025. The application was filed on 7 September 2025 within 21 days of the end of employment. Mr Tischler commenced employment with the Respondent on 1 November 2020 as a traffic controller and Ute driver on a casual basis and completed a period of employment in excess of the minimum employment period. Relevant Legislation [2026] FWC 1620 DECISION [2026] FWC 1620 2 [8] Section 385 of the Act states that a person has been unfairly dismissed if: (a) the person has been dismissed; and (b) the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; and (c) the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code; and (d) the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy. [9] The question for determination is whether the Applicant’s dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable pursuant to s.387 of the Act, which states: “387 Criteria for considering harshness etc. In considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the FWC must take into account: a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal; and e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person— whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal; and f) the degree to which the size of the employer’s enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and h) any other matters that the FWC considers relevant.” Evidence and Submissions [2026] FWC 1620 3 [10] The Applicant was engaged by the Respondent as a traffic controller and Ute driver since November 2020. [11] On 22 August 2025, the Applicant received an invitation to a Show Cause Meeting. This invitation outlined four allegations of serious misconduct. [12] On 26 August 2025, the alleged conduct and policy breaches were explained to the Applicant in the Show Cause Meeting. The Respondents says the Applicant was given the opportunity to provide a response or a reasonable explanation for his conduct during this meeting but failed to do so. [13] On the 26 August, after the Show Cause Meeting, the Applicant was advised of the reasons for the immediate termination of his employment in a written termination letter. [14] The Respondent contended that the Applicant was dismissed due to serious misconduct based upon multiple, substantiated allegations of misconduct and breaches of company policy. The Applicant denies that these allegations were the basis of his dismissal and instead claims that he was unfairly dismissed due to comments he made to a client. The Applicant further asserts that there was no deliberate or wilful behaviour that would constitute serious misconduct. [15] The Applicant submits that the dismissal was unfair because the Respondent did not follow the Dispute Resolution Process as set out in cl.11.1 of the Enterprise Agreement. [16] The Applicant further asserts that the Enterprise Agreement was breached as Mr Crooks, who received the complaint regarding his behaviour, did not call the Applicant to discuss the details of the complaint with him. [17] The Applicant submits that the Enterprise Agreement applied to the Applicant’s employment. [18] The Respondent submits that in response to the Applicant’s primary concern that the Dispute Resolution Process contained in the Enterprise Agreement was not followed as the grounds for the dismissal being unfair, that the Applicant misunderstands the application of the Dispute Resolution Process. The Respondent states that the Dispute Resolution Process relates to disputes and grievances in respect of the application of the Enterprise Agreement and the National Employment Standards. Therefore, the dispute procedure does not apply in relation to disciplinary action taken against an employee. [19] The Applicant submits that the dismissal was unfair because Mr Crooks did not contact the other two Ute drivers to determine which one was working with the Applicant on Lotus Hampton Road and did not gather evidence from the Ute Drivers present at the Job site on 19 August 2025 to substantiate the allegations made by Ms Krantz before acting on the complaint. [20] The Applicant submits that the dismissal was unfair as the allegations made by Ms Krantz were not substantiated and that the allegations were instead made to destroy his credibility. [2026] FWC 1620 4 [21] The Applicant submits that the dismissal was unfair because Mr Lloyd did not confirm the job details of the incidents referred to in Ms Krantz letter in the Traffic System. [22] The Applicant submits, that as he received no warnings regarding his employment prior to his dismissal that he cannot be “legally, morally, or ethically terminated”. [23] The Applicant submits that the Commission should determine that the Applicant’s dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, and the Commission should order the Respondent to provide compensation and damages to the sum of $50,000,000 to the Applicant. [24] The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable within the meaning of s.387. [25] The Respondent submits that the reason the Applicant was dismissed was sound and defensible, and the relevant procedural steps were complied with. [26] The Respondent submits that on 26 August 2025, having conducted a consultation process the Respondent dismissed the Applicant within the meaning of s.387 of the Act for a valid reason. [27] The Respondent submits that this conduct by the Applicant amounted to serious misconduct as defined in regulation r1.07 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) as the conduct was of a nature which had the potential to cause serious and imminent risk to the safety of the Respondent’s staff, Veolia staff, and the public, and had the potential to cause serious risk to the reputation of the Respondent. [28] The Respondent submits that the Applicant was dismissed for serious misconduct and that the Respondent undertook a procedurally fair process and that the nature and extent of the Applicant’ misconduct was such that dismissal of employment was proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances. [29] Therefore, the Respondent submits that the Applicant was not unfairly dismissed, the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable, and the application should be dismissed by the Commission. Allegation 1: Motor vehicle accident [30] The Respondent alleged that on 22 July 2025, the Applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident with a member of the public at the Logan Road 7-Eleven service station. The Applicant failed to report the incident immediately to his supervisor. [31] On 14 August 2025, the incident was disclosed to the Respondent by the insurance provider. [32] Regarding Allegation 1, the Applicant submits that he did not report the incident because he had insufficient information to do so. The Applicant states that once he told the member of the public involved in the incident that he worked for the Respondent, the member of the public suggested that the accident took place somewhere other than the 7-Eleven Service [2026] FWC 1620 5 Station. Once this suggestion was made, the Applicant refused to exchange details with the other driver which led to insufficient information being available to make a report. The Applicant said he took a photo of the damage and the number plate just in case he got anything from RACQ. [33] The Applicant said in his oral evidence he stopped to buy some coffee, and he was monitoring the reversing camera, and he saw a white car and he immediately stopped, and the white car stopped too. The Applicant said he got out of his car and the driver of the white car claimed that the Applicant had damaged her car. The Applicant said the other driver refused to give him her name and driver’s license. [34] The Respondent submits that the Applicant failed to follow its Vehicle and Equipment Use Policy, which requires employees to promptly report all incidents. Ms Payne said that Applicant admitted that an incident occurred and there was no reporting of it at all. Ms Payne said they received notice there was an incident and the Respondent had to go to the Applicant to find out what occurred, and when the Respondent spoke to the Applicant, he could not remember which 7-Eleven the incident occurred at which meant there was details lacking. [35] Ms Payne later said that the Applicant forwarded the claim from the insurer. The Applicant said there was a scratch, but he suspected it may have been from another incident. He said he received the insurance claim about two weeks after the incident and forwarded it to his employer on receiving it. [36] In all of the circumstances the only direct evidence I have in relation to the incident itself is that of the Applicant. The Applicant should have reported the incident promptly to the Respondent, despite the other person involved apparently refusing to share information with him, and despite his doubts about whether he had caused the damage to the other car. Allegation 2: Unsafe behaviour and entering private property [37] During the week ending on 30 May 2025, the Respondent assigned the Applicant to a company that worked on behalf of Urban Utilities. At some point during that week, the Applicant was assigned to a crew that worked on the sewer line in Fleet Lane. [38] While working with this crew, the client, who was running the Video Camera Trolly, which is used to check the sewer line, made several comments regarding the safety of the sewer maintenance hole to the Applicant. The Applicant states that these comments informed his later decision-making process. The comments included that: a) The sewer maintenance hole was only dangerous while the lid was still in place due to the possible build-up of toxic gasses which fully escape once the lid is removed from the sewer maintenance hole b) The only way that one could fall into an open sewer maintenance hole was by either being pushed by another person or being blown into the maintenance hole by the wind. [2026] FWC 1620 6 [39] On 19 August 2025, the Respondent says the Applicant placed himself at risk by standing over an open sewer maintenance hole without authorisation. The Applicant had also not received training in confined space entry or working at heights. [40] The Applicant submits that these actions were not unsafe as informed by previous comments made to him by a Video Camera Trolley operator on another jobsite, outlined above. [41] The Applicant also explained that he knew from his previous observations that on the day of this incident, the team that were doing the inspections were using wheels that were too small, and he was attempting to give them that information. Ms Payne said the Applicant’s conduct was in breach of the Respondent’s Safety and Well Being policy and the Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS). [42] Ms Payne said the Applicant is assigned to a station to be on pedestrian or traffic watch, and by moving away from his station and then going and engaging with the other workers and looking in the hole, he turned his back on the traffic, and he also has no safe route to escape. It was said that the Applicant put everyone in danger in that situation because a car could have ploughed through the site. [43] Ms White said there was a traffic island in the middle of the road where cones were being put around a manhole located in the centre of the road. Ms White said the Applicant needed to set up the signage first, to be able to keep the site safe, as there are people in the middle of the road. The Applicant said no work had commenced yet. He agreed the lid was off the manhole. The Applicant accepted he was asked to move away from the manhole. [44] The Respondent also said that when work is being done on the road, especially around a sewer main, because it’s a confined space and it’s also working at heights, an exclusion zone is set up, which is normally three metres around where the work is being done and cones are put around that area. The Respondent said once that this is set up, the traffic controller is not allowed back in that area. The Applicant said the exclusion zone had not been set up. The Applicant accepted it was his role to set up the exclusion zone. [45] The Respondent maintained that the Applicant was inside the exclusion zone twice, the first time when he looked in the manhole, and the second time when he was asked to move away. [46] Additionally on 19 August 2025, the Applicant is alleged to have entered private property, looked into the windows of this property, and attempted to move curtains without authorisation. The Applicant then failed to follow reasonable client directions on two occasions when asked to move away. [47] The Respondent alleges that this behaviour caused the Applicant to leave his workstation unattended which endangered pedestrians. [48] The Applicant denies that he had a workstation at this time and therefore, did not leave it unattended. The Applicant states that the CCTV truck was parked in the centre of the road and that this incident occurred while three Veolia Environmental Services employees stood behind the truck discussing what a complaint against a traffic controller needed to contain and [2026] FWC 1620 7 therefore, no work was being undertaken. The Applicant further contends that no pedestrians were endangered by his actions. [49] The Applicant further states that the other Ute driver he was working with during this incident was not concerned by the Applicant looking into the window of the Hall (the private property in question) and they discussed renting it for a function. [50] The Applicant additionally submits that as Mr Lloyd, Ms Payne, and Ms White were not present at the job site on 19 August 2025 they have no knowledge regarding whether an open maintenance hole is safe to stand beside. [51] The Respondent submits that on 19 August 2025, the Applicant left his traffic control station, entered a private property and reached inside a window to draw back a curtain in breach of its SWMS, WHS & Wellbeing Policy, and Code of Conduct. The Applicant gave oral evidence that he is part of a Church that meets at Springfield, and the Church was looking for a location more central in Brisbane. The Applicant said he got bored and was doing nothing, so he walked to the Hall and tried to have a look. The Respondent said that the Applicant was supposed to be standing at a station and he walked away to look at the Hall. [52] The Applicant’s evidence was there was no station and he was told to move away. Allegation 3: Behaviour towards colleagues [53] As noted above, on 19 August 2025, the Applicant was assigned to work with the Respondent’s client Veolia Environmental Services. This client had a team running the Video Camera Trolley used to take video inside the sewer main at 19 Lotus Street Woolloongabba. [54] The Applicant suggested to this team that the flow in the sewer was too high for the wheels that were currently on the Video Camera Trolley and that bigger wheels would be needed. The Applicant justified his ability to provide this advice due to his previous experience working on a similar jobsite. [55] The Applicant then further advised the team that it was a good idea to clean the area around the cover as there was a lot of dirt around the seal between the cover and the open sewer maintenance hole. [56] The Applicant asserts that the Video Camera Trolley was eventually removed from the sewer main to replace its wheels for a larger set. [57] Prior to the Video Camera Trolley being put back into the sewer main, Ms Krantz, a supervisor for Veolia Environmental Services arrived. The Applicant alleges that the team running the Video Camera Trolley advised the supervisor at this time of the Applicant’s comments. The Applicant attempted to find out what the supervisor was saying to the other employees but was told to “go away”. [58] Once the Video Camera Trolley was back inside the sewer main the supervisor walked to the corner of Albion and Lucinda Street and notified the driver of the vacuum truck that the Respondent would receive an official complaint about the Applicant’s behaviour. [2026] FWC 1620 8 [59] On 20 August 2025, Ms Krantz made a complaint to the Respondent about the Applicant’s behaviour stating the following: “Hi Chris, Yesterday I scheduled an all day site visit with one of our CCTV crews (all female crew) where I followed them around to multiple job sites. The crew had your traffic control services with us throughout the day and although all but one controlled was great! I do have some concerns in relation to one particular controller that was onsite and I believe his name to be Emmanuel. The first job site that I attended, I witnessed Emmanuel being extremely disruptive to the CCTV crew, standing over them asking multiple questions even when I was clearly having a site talk with them, I had to kindly ask him to give us 5 minutes. Where he walked over to an industrial building, walked up a flight of stairs and was looking through windows, even went to put his arm in the window to pry back the curtains. Where I then had to disrupt my site talk to stop him and advise him that what he was doing was inappropriate. The second job site I also had to pull him up again when he was standing over an open maintenance hole looking in. I had to advise him of the dangers around sewer and the gases, also noting that he is not trained in working at heights or confined spaces. He did listen to me and stood back, so that is a positive. Throughout the day my general observations was that he was making my Female staff members uncomfortable with long stares, being too close to them when they were working and he was not focused on his direct role of traffic control. There was talk that this controller, also on a previous jobsite with a different Veolia crew, urinated into a bottle and proceeded to them tip it out in front of our Veolia crew. I do trust that you will action these issues raised with this certain controller, My suggestion would be and from what I witnessed yesterday, Emmanual would benefit in some further workplace training on what his role is when onsite and what is appropriate behaviour.” [60] Regarding Allegation 3, the Applicant submits that he was standing close to the Veolia crew to hear the comments made by Ms Krantz to the team and that the dismissal was unfair as he was simply providing advice to the crew on how the job could be done better. [61] The Respondent submits that on 19 August 2025, the Applicant left his station and stood over an open maintenance hole and looked inside which is in breach of its SWMS and WHS & Wellbeing Policy. The Respondent advised at the hearing that it did not rely on an allegation of bullying, discrimination or harassment and they were not satisfied the Applicant engaged in that conduct, and it does not rely on that allegation. [2026] FWC 1620 9 Allegation 4: Public exposure [62] The Respondent submitted that based upon Ms Krantz complaint to the Respondent, on an undisclosed date, the Applicant urinated into a bottle and tipped it out in the presence of a Veolia client representative. [63] On a separate occasion on 8 August 2025, the Applicant received a phone call from Mr Crooks requesting he bring his empty Ute to the Virgina Depot to restock the Ute with new traffic control signage. [64] While the Applicant was at the Virgina Depot, Mr Crooks advised the Applicant of a different complaint that had been made against him by a female employee of the Respondent, being that the Applicant walked down Rocky Passage Road to urinate near a tree as one of the other two Ute drivers were having their lunch break. [65] Regarding Allegation 4 the Applicant, submits that there was no public exposure during the times he urinated on the jobsite as it was done so into a dark plastic bottle while standing beside the open passenger door of his work Ute. The Applicant states that this behaviour does not constitute misconduct as he could find no details regarding “urinating into a dark plastic water bottle” in the SWMS, the Avada Safe Values or Code of Conduct. [66] Furthermore, the Applicant submits that they have made several inquiries regarding the job number and location of the Veolia project regarding Allegation 4 which have not been provided by the Respondent. The Applicant has submitted the Respondent is unable to demonstrate who the job was done for, the job number, the date on which this incident occurred and the location of the job. [67] The Respondent submits that in respect of the enquiry regarding Allegation 4, the evidence of the Respondent witnesses is that the Applicant admitted to doing this and further admitted to being spoken to by a supervisor regarding urinating on job sites. The Respondent, therefore, contends that the Applicant was aware of the issues with urinating on site. [68] The Respondent submits that on 19 August 2025, it was notified of an occasion where the Applicant urinated into a bottle and tipped the urine out in front of a work crew which is in breach of the Avada Traffic SWMS which prohibits urinating in public. The Applicant said he was not aware of that. The Respondent produced a record of the Applicant having signed off on the SWMS. The Applicant was shown the document and accepted he had signed it in November 2024. The Respondent submitted that traffic controllers are permitted to leave site to visit a toilet and there is a rotation of duties every 2 hours, as well as 15 minutes breaks and meal breaks. [69] The Respondent submits that the above conduct is uncontroversial as it was admitted by the Applicant during the meeting on 26 August 2025. The Respondent submitted this conduct is explicitly prohibited under the SWMS and is inconsistent with professional behaviour required under the Code of Conduct. That Applicant accepted in his oral evidence that he had urinated in a bottle. He accepted on another occasion he had urinated on a tree when he was doing stop go duties and did not want to leave his station, and that is when another traffic [2026] FWC 1620 10 controller made a complaint about him. The Applicant said doing traffic control work you are supposed to drink a certain amount of water to stay hydrated. Crooks phone call [70] On 25 August 2025, the Applicant called the rostering team to enquire as to why he had not been assigned any work on Thursday 21 August and Friday 22 August 2025. [71] After making this call, the Applicant received a phone call from Mr Crooks. Mr Crooks advised the Applicant that Ms White had sent the Applicant an email and asked the Applicant if he had read it. The email contained the Invitation to Show Cause Meeting Letter, dated 22 August 2025. [72] The Applicant states that during this call Mr Crooks suggested that he “had not learned anything during the six years and ten months” that the Applicant had worked for the Respondent. The Applicant then advised Mr Crooks that he had not received any warning either written or verbal in relation to his duties as a traffic control Ute driver for the Respondent. Show Cause Meeting [73] On 26 August 2025, the Applicant attended a Show Cause meeting (the meeting). Ms White, Ms Payne, and Mr Chris Lloyd (Regional Manager – Brisbane Metro) were also present at the meeting. [74] During the meeting, the above allegations were read, and the Respondent asserts that the Applicant admitted to all four allegations of serious misconduct as outlined in the Invitation to Show Cause Meeting letter. [75] Mrs Lolita Tischler’s Statutory Declaration states that she was sitting at the kitchen table opposite the Applicant during the meeting. Mrs Tischler confirms that Ms Payne stated it would not be necessary to contact the other Avada Ute driver due to the nature of complaints made against the applicant. Mrs Tischler also confirms the series of events outlined above regarding the Applicant’s comments made to the CCTV crew and the conduct of Ms Krantz on 19 August 2025. Post-termination behaviour [76] The Respondent claims that following termination the Applicant made several enquiries which were responded to. [77] After these initial interactions, the Respondent alleges that the Applicant then proceeded to harass staff, clients, and senior managers via email and phone calls, despite requests to stop this contact. The Respondent asserts that the Applicant has ignored these reasonable requests and that the behaviour remains inappropriate and disruptive. [78] The Applicant alleges that Schramm Traffic Control Company was sent a copy of the Invitation to Show Cause meeting email. [2026] FWC 1620 11 [79] The Applicant further alleges that Altus, a different company, advised him that due to the complaint made against him they would not hire him as a Traffic Controller. The Applicant further states that he was supposed to go to Altus for an induction which was cancelled. [80] The Applicant received a Cease-and-Desist letter from the Respondent which states: “We refer to our cease-and-desist notice issued on 4 September 2025, and a further reminder sent on 11 September 2025. Despite these written directions, you have continued to contact AVADA Traffic supervisors, managers, company executives, members of the Boards and AVADA clients… As previously advised, your employment with AVADA Traffic ended on 26 August 2025, and you are not authorised to contact any AVADA employees, executives, or clients for any reason. The ongoing matter is currently before the Fair Work Commissioner, and you are required to follow this process. Any necessary correspondence must be made only via email to hrqld@avadatraffic.com.au Any further contact outside of this approved channel, or any attempt to contact AVADA clients or staff directly, will be considered harassment. If such conduct continues, AVADA Traffic will have no option but to pursue legal action to protect its staff and business interests” Consideration (a) Valid reason [81] I have considered the evidence. I am satisfied that the Applicant failed to follow the Respondents Vehicle and Equipment Use Policy, which requires employees to promptly report all incidents. Whilst I accept the Applicants evidence that the other party in the incident was not cooperative in sharing details, it does not excuse the Applicants failure to report the incident. [82] I am also satisfied on the evidence that on 19 August 2025 the Applicant entered what should have been an exclusion zone. I am also satisfied that on the same day the Applicant left the traffic area he was responsible for monitoring and entered private property to go and look inside a Hall which was unrelated to his work duties. This conduct became the source of a written complaint made by a client of the Respondent, to the Respondent about the conduct of the Applicant that day. [83] I am also satisfied that the Applicant breached the Avada Traffic SWMS which prohibits urinating in public by walking away from his workplace and urinating on a tree which became the subject of a separate complaint by another traffic controller. [84] The Applicant accepted during his oral evidence that he had previously signed a document confirming he understood the Respondents policy in relation to this issue. [2026] FWC 1620 12 [85] When each of the findings made above are taken together it satisfies me that at the time of termination the Respondent had a valid reason for dismissal. (b) Notification of reason [86] The Applicant was notified of the reasons for termination of his employment. That is not in dispute. (c) Opportunity to respond [87] I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence of Ms White and Ms Payne that the Applicant was afforded the opportunity to respondent to the allegations made by the Respondent in the show cause meeting, and he made admissions in the course of the meeting in relation to the matters raised. (d) Refusal of a support person [88] The Respondent contends that at no time was the Applicant refused a support person, the Applicant declined a support person, and despite this it is clear from the material provided by the Applicant (ET-11 Statutory Declaration - Lolita Tischler) that a support person was present during the meeting. The Applicant did not argue he was refused this opportunity. (e) Whether the applicant was warned about unsatisfactory performance [89] The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s dismissal did not relate to unsatisfactory performance and it is not a relevant factor. (f) - (g) Size of enterprise and availability of human resource specialists [90] The Applicant is not a small business and had human resources expertise. These are neutral considerations. (h) Other considerations [91] The Applicant is 68 years old. In November 2025 he obtained employment with another traffic control company. Conclusion [92] I have weighed each of the matters I am required to take into account. I have concluded the Respondent had a valid reason for dismissal, and the Applicant was afforded procedural fairness in that he was given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him before the termination. [93] Having weighed all of the considerations I am satisfied that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. On that basis the application for unfair dismissal remedy is dismissed. [2026] FWC 1620 13 COMMISSIONER Appearances: E Tischler, for the Applicant G Power, for the Respondent Hearing details: 2026 Brisbane 6 February Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR799741> 1 Exhibit 1 2 Exhibit 2 3 Exhibit 3