The Commission criticised the process – but another factor drove the outcome
A July 10 Fair Work Commission ruling shows that problems with a PIP process may not outweigh a long history of missed performance targets.
The Fair Work Commission has dismissed an unfair dismissal application brought by a former Account Executive employed by Podium Australia Pty Ltd, finding the company had a valid reason for dismissal after sustained underperformance over a 15-month period. The decision, Jordan Keller v Podium Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 2630, was issued on July 10, 2026.
For HR professionals, the case highlights a challenge many organizations face: how much weight procedural issues carry when there is a lengthy and well-documented record of performance concerns.
The employee worked in a sales role responsible for generating new business. Performance was primarily measured through Annual Contract Value (ACV), which the Commission described as the key measure of performance for Account Executives.
According to the decision, the employee did not achieve the monthly ACV target at any point during employment. The Commission noted that the employee generated $321,360 in ACV against targets totalling $844,500, representing about 38% of target.
In challenging the dismissal, the employee argued that several factors contributed to the performance results, including turnover among sales development representatives, changes in managers, and the death of the employee's sister in August 2025. The employee also argued that a second Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) was not administered as outlined, including the level of support provided and the decision to end the process before its stated completion date.
On that point, the Commission accepted there were shortcomings in the process.
The second PIP was stated to run until December 10, 2025, but the employee's employment was terminated on December 2, 2025. The Commission also noted that coaching discussions were not recorded in the employer's HR platform as contemplated by the PIP.
Deputy President Masson found that ending the PIP early introduced "an element of unjustness" and concluded that the employee was denied a reasonable opportunity to respond because the process was truncated.
But those findings were not enough to determine the outcome.
The Commission found that the employee's ongoing inability to meet the required performance standards remained the central issue. It noted that the employee did not achieve the monthly ACV target throughout the employment period and also did not meet key targets set under the second PIP, including ACV and outbound call expectations.
The Commission was not satisfied that staff turnover or management changes adequately explained the performance shortfall. While it accepted that the employee's bereavement would likely have affected performance, it found that concerns about performance pre-dated that event and continued afterwards.
Ultimately, the Commission concluded there was a valid reason for dismissal based on the employee's capacity to perform the role. Although the dismissal involved some procedural unfairness, the Commission found that the employee's sustained underperformance carried greater weight and dismissed the application.
For employers, the message is straightforward: follow the process you set out, provide and document support, and make sure performance expectations are clear. At the same time, the decision shows that where there is strong evidence of long-term underperformance, procedural shortcomings alone will not necessarily make a dismissal unfair.
