He moved interstate, started a cleaning business - and lost 30% of his payout
The Fair Work Commission has ordered a Perth boxing gym to pay a former worker $9,100 in compensation - after the employer failed to show up for the hearing on how much he owed.
The remedy decision, handed down on September 18, 2026, follows an earlier finding that the worker was unfairly dismissed from Stay In The Fight Boxing Australia.
The worker had been at the gym for about 13 months when things fell apart. By April 2026, the Commission found, the working relationship had deteriorated to a point where it was no longer salvageable. Neither side had much good to say about the other - the employer raised concerns about the quality and safety of the worker's performance, while the worker had complaints about how he was treated.
Then came the termination.
In the Commission's earlier decision, it noted the worker described a heated exchange in which the employer said words to the effect of: "I will fucking kill you cunt. Do you know who the fuck I am? I have done way worse to bigger pieces of shit than you, you think I won't fucking kill you?" before telling him to "grab your stuff and get the fuck out."
The Commission found the dismissal unfair on June 24.
From there, the employer's approach to the remedy phase matched his earlier conduct - which, as the Commission put it, "left a lot to be desired." After being directed to file submissions, the employer requested a two-week adjournment. That request came only after a non-compliance notice had already been issued for failing to provide materials. The Commission asked for evidence to support the delay. None arrived. The adjournment was refused.
A hearing was set for July 24. The employer did not attend. He filed nothing on remedy despite having three weeks to prepare. The Commission decided the matter based entirely on the worker's submissions.
The worker was not seeking his job back. He had moved interstate and said returning to the workplace was not practical - which, given the circumstances of the firing, the Commission accepted.
So the question was money.
The worker sought the maximum - 26 weeks at roughly $900 to $1,050 per week. The Commission settled on $1,000 per week as the base figure and estimated the worker would have stayed in the role for no more than another 13 weeks had he not been dismissed, given how fractured the relationship already was. That set the starting figure at $13,000.
But the worker's post-dismissal choices drew scrutiny. He had relocated interstate and gone into a startup cleaning business with a partner. The business was in its early stages and he was not drawing any income - he told the Commission he had been borrowing from his business partner, his family, and dipping into savings to stay afloat.
The Commission acknowledged the worker was keen to get the cleaning venture going but noted he had skills from the fitness industry he could have used to find work in the meantime. He provided no evidence of job applications or other efforts to secure alternative employment.
That finding cost him. The Commission was not satisfied he had taken reasonable steps to reduce his losses, and applied a 30% reduction to the $13,000 figure. The final order: $9,100 gross, plus superannuation, less taxation, to be paid in two instalments.
For HR professionals, the case illustrates two sides of the post-dismissal equation: employers who disengage from tribunal processes do not make the problem disappear, and departing workers who pivot to a new venture without evidence of job-searching risk leaving money on the table.
The decision is final. An order was issued concurrently.
