First he argued he was overpaid, then he argued he was a labourer, neither stuck
An estimator argued his employer was overpaying him, and that his "real" salary sat below the high income threshold. The Commission wasn't convinced.
Libe Chacos was dismissed by residential builder Regal Homes (Aust.) Pty Ltd on 19 September 2025. Three days later, he filed an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission. The catch: at the time of his dismissal, he was earning $192,000 a year, plus superannuation, well above the high income threshold of $183,100 that applied between 1 July 2025 and 30 June 2026.
That should have been the end of the matter. But Chacos had a creative argument.
The salary argument
Chacos initially pointed to his Notice of Assessment from the Australian Taxation Office, which showed taxable income of $168,165 for the year ending 30 June 2025. The Commission noted this missed the point, since what matters is the rate of earnings at the time of dismissal, not what was actually earned in the previous 12 months.
He then accepted his salary was $192,000 but said he wasn't really a high income employee because he didn't have a guarantee of annual earnings. That argument went nowhere either. His most interesting pitch came next. Chacos said his salary had been inflated to compensate him for weekend work at display homes, work he had since stopped doing. On that basis, he argued his pay should have reverted to $160,000, which would have placed him under the threshold.
The parties agreed Chacos had proposed the pay cut to Regal Homes. They also agreed the company never accepted it. Commissioner McKinnon found the contractual salary remained $192,000 plus superannuation at the date of termination, and the application failed on that ground.
The award argument
Chacos had a backup. Even if his salary was over the threshold, he said he was covered by the Building and Construction General On-site Award 2020, which would still give him a path to an unfair dismissal claim. Specifically, he said he was a Level 1 construction worker, the award's lowest classification, with examples including builders' labourers, general hands and painter brush hands.
The role he actually performed told a different story. Chacos started as an estimator and over time picked up quality control duties, pre-handover inspections, contract administration and on-site technical guidance. The company's director, Natasha Stoka, described him as her "2IC," a phrase Chacos said he had never heard before. According to Stoka, Chacos worked with clients from the start to the finish of projects. Chacos himself denied being a manager, saying he had no final say on which projects to be involved with and no authority over other staff, and that he provided technical feedback and input "and 'that was it'."
Commissioner McKinnon found his work required "a level of sophistication and experience far beyond that of a Level 1 construction worker under the Award."
His final fallback was that his work qualified as work in a technical field under clause A.1.13 of the award. The Commission accepted the description fitted some of his duties, but said the clause was a definition, not a coverage trigger. Coverage requires fitting one of the actual classifications, and Chacos didn't.
On 1 May 2026, Commissioner McKinnon dismissed the application.
The case is a useful reminder that informal conversations about reducing a worker's pay don't change the contract unless the employer agrees. It also shows that what counts for unfair dismissal jurisdiction is the rate of earnings on the day of dismissal, not historical taxable income. And when assessing award coverage for technical or hybrid roles, the question is the principal purpose of the role, not whether individual duties happen to overlap with award language.
