He was fit, willing, and 65 - his contract said that was the end of the road
A worker required to retire at 65 has been awarded compensation after the Fair Work Commission ruled his dismissal unfair.
An employer that ended a long-serving worker's job the month he turned 65 has been ordered to pay compensation, after the Fair Work Commission found the dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable.
The decision, handed down on July 16, 2026, involved a chauffeur who had worked for the Consulate General of India, Sydney, continuously for more than ten years from April 2015, and during earlier periods dating back to the 1990s. His contract said he would retire when he reached 65. When that day came in July 2025, his employment ended.
The Consulate's position was that no one had been dismissed. It argued the worker was on a fixed-term contract that simply expired, which would place the matter outside the unfair dismissal rules, and it raised a jurisdictional objection challenging the Commission's power to hear the case at all.
The Commission rejected both arguments. It found the worker had been dismissed under the Fair Work Act, and, as part of its reasoning, that the retirement clause was likely to offend section 18(1)(c) of the Age Discrimination Act 2004 - the provision that makes it unlawful to discriminate against someone on the ground of age.
The reasoning is what HR teams should note. The Commission found the worker had to agree to retire at 65 just to be offered the job,...
The relator managed to connect alleged upcode overcharging to the submission of bills to the government that would have necessarily contained inflated charges. A qui tam relator who did not plead ...