A Queensland boat pilot who was dismissed while facing stalking and domestic violence charges has won reinstatement. The pilot had been held in custody for months, accused of stalking his ex-partner and two other women. The Fair Work Commission found his employer had a valid reason for termination as the pilot was unable to work. However, it ruled that the employer’s true reason for the sacking, the unproven criminal allegations, was “premature and unjust.”
In this article, we look at the events of this Fair Work unfair dismissal case: Brett Holzheimer v Engage Marine Pty Ltd [2026]. Later, we look at a health worker who argued he was unlawfully sacked over an ADVO taken out against him by his ex-wife.
Case Summary: Brett Holzheimer v Engage Marine Pty Ltd [2026]
- Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission NSW.
- Key employee argument:He was dismissed primarily because of unproven criminal charges against him, rather than genuinely because of his inability to attend work.
- Key employer argument: The dismissal was based solely on the worker’s ongoing absence from work, which it was not required to accommodate indefinitely.
- Fair Work outcome: Unjustified dismissal. Reliance on unproven criminal charges was premature and unjust. Reinstatement ordered.
Worker taken into custody after relationship breakdown
Brett Holzheimer started working as a pilot boat operator for Engage Marine in the north Queensland town of Bowen in August 2021. On 19 August 2025, the 45-year-old was arrested and held on remand facing serious domestic violence and stalking charges, which he denied. Police alleged that the charges arose following a relationship breakdown with his former partner. Prosecutors alleged in court that Mr Holzheimer followed and loitered around a woman between May and August 2025. This was while he was already on bail for separate stalking charges involving two other women. Citing public safety concerns, the court refused bail.
While in custody, Mr Holzheimer only had access to a 10-minute phone call each day, and relied on his brother, Jake, to liaise with Engage Marine on his behalf. On 26 August 2025, Jake told Engage Marine that Mr Holzheimer needed six months of unpaid leave for personal reasons. He later disclosed the allegations of stalking and domestic violence in the context of a custody dispute. Engage Marine’s HR lead subsequently found a Courier Mail article that reported the full breadth of his charges and his denial of bail.
Company raised fraud concerns before shifting stated reason for dismissal
Engage Marine subsequently wrote to Mr Holzheimer via Jake, declining his request for unpaid leave. It also alleged that he may have fraudulently used sick leave on days coinciding with earlier court appearances. The company said that it considered the employer-employee relationship to be “frustrated.” It also expressed safety concerns for the company’s female staff given everyone worked in a “confined” workplace onboard vessels.
Mr Holzheimer, through Jake, disputed the fraud allegation. He claimed that his earlier leave was related to genuine mental health difficulties due to his relationship breakdown. Mr Holzheimer also argued that attending court while on legitimate sick leave did not invalidate his entitlement to that leave. On 4 November 2025, Engage Marine gave Mr Holzheimer eight weeks’ notice of termination. The termination letter stated the decision was based solely on his “inability to attend work for an indefinite period.” The company maintained that it was not a reflection of any presumption of guilt related to the criminal allegations.
Mr Holzheimer was released on bail on 27 February 2026, on the condition that he not approach his former partner or their children.
Why did the worker argue his dismissal was unfair?
In his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mr Holzheimer argued:
- His inability to attend work was not the true reason for termination of employment. The real reason was the unproven criminal charges against him.
- He was entitled to the presumption of innocence. It was premature for his employer to treat the charges as a basis for termination of employment.
- Any misleading information provided to Engage Marine came from his brother Jake.
- His earlier use of sick leave was legitimate and related to genuine mental health difficulties, not fraudulent conduct.
In response to the Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Engage Marine argued that the termination was based solely on Mr Holzheimer’s indefinite inability to attend work. The company contended that it was not required to hold his position open pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. It also had reasonable concerns for the safety of its predominantly onboard, confined workforce.
Read More: Behind Bars and Out of Time – Unfair Dismissal Claim Dismissed
Why did Fair Work find the dismissal was unfair?
Mr Holzheimer’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in August 2026. At the time of the hearing, he had not yet faced trial for the charges against him. The Commission ruled in Mr Holzheimer’s favour for the following reasons:
- His inability to attend work was a valid reason for dismissal. However, during proceedings, Engage Marine admitted “the real reason for the termination was the criminal allegations.”
- The reason for dismissal was therefore not “solely” his inability to attend work.
- It was reasonable for Engage Marine to have concerns about the charges and workplace safety. However, it was “premature and unjust” to rely on unproven criminal charges as a basis for dismissal. Mr Holzheimer had not been convicted and continued to maintain his innocence.
- The provision of misleading information about Mr Holzheimer’s circumstances came from his brother. Evidence did not prove Mr Holzheimer was responsible for those actions.
- The dismissal process was “mostly fair,” but “tainted” by the company’s “inauthentic shift in reasoning” away from reliance on the criminal charges.
The Commission found that reinstatement to Mr Holzheimer’s former role was appropriate. This took into account his over four years of otherwise unblemished service and the difficulty of obtaining similar work in his area. The Commission ordered reinstatement with continuity of service, along with an order for partial back pay reflecting 20 weeks’ lost remuneration.
Read More: $68K Unfair Dismissal Payout for Cook Fired Over Phantom Refusal
Dismissed worker argues he was persecuted for having an ADVO against him
In Kandel v Hammondcare [2026], a health worker argued he had been unlawfully dismissed due to the apprehended domestic violence order (ADVO) made against him. The worker contended that being subject to an ADVO application is a protected attribute under Australian workplace law. However, the Federal Court rejected this argument, noting that such an attribute doesn’t come under the Fair Work general protections provisions.
Case Summary: Kandel v Hammondcare [2026]
- Jurisdiction: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
- Key employee argument: He was unlawfully terminated for being subject to an ADVO application by his ex-wife.
- Key employer argument: The worker’s Fair Work general protections claim was not valid because being subject to an ADVO application is not a protected attribute.
- Court outcome: The claim was summarily dismissed for want of reasonable prospects of success.
Worker terminated following manager’s concerns over ADVO report
NSW-based Kul Raj Kandel began working as a specialised dementia carer for HammondCare from around March 2024. On 14 May 2024, his manager raised concerns about a police report connected to his ex-wife’s ADVO application. Mr Kandel insisted the allegations were false and that his police clearance remained intact. He later told the Fair Work Commission that his manager did not believe this explanation.
During a meeting on 16 July 2024, HammondCare told Mr Kandel that it had received “bad feedback” without detailing any further specifics. He was handed a termination of employment letter that had been drafted six days prior. Mr Kandel subsequently lodged a Fair Work general protections claim.
Why did the worker argue his dismissal was unlawful?
In his Fair Work general protections claim, Mr Kandel argued:
- Adverse action had been taken against him because he was dismissed for being subject to an ADVO application.
- Being subject to the application was a workplace right, which he had been dismissed for exercising.
Read more: Fair Work Commission Rejects Constructive Dismissal Claim
Fair Work FAQs
- Do I have to tell my employer if I am charged with a crime in Australia?
There is generally no automatic legal obligation to disclose criminal charges to your employer unless your employment contract, industry regulations or a specific duty of disclosure requires it. However, employers may become aware of charges through other means, and how they respond can still be challenged if it leads to an unfair or unlawful dismissal.
In Brett Holzheimer v Engage Marine Pty Ltd [2026], the worker did not personally disclose his criminal charges to his employer, who instead discovered the details through a news article. Despite this, the Fair Work Commission found the employer’s reliance on those unproven charges as the reason for dismissal was “premature and unjust.”
- What is the difference between a general protections claim and an unfair dismissal claim?
An unfair dismissal claim before the Fair Work Commission evaluates whether a termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable based on procedural fairness and valid cause. By contrast, a general protections claim focuses strictly on whether an employer took adverse action for a legally prohibited reason. This can include exercising a workplace right or possessing a protected attribute like race, sex or religion.
This distinction was central to the case Kandel v Hammondcare [2026]. In his general protections claim, the worker argued he had been unlawfully dismissed because he was subject to an ADVO application. He also claimed that he was denied procedural fairness. The court dismissed the application, ruling that being subject to an ADVO application is not a protected attribute under general protections. The court also highlighted that procedural fairness complaints fall exclusively under the unfair dismissal jurisdiction of the Fair Work Commission.
Have you been dismissed based on unproven allegations?
For more than 20 years, A Whole New Approach has stood exclusively on the side of employees, never employers, helping Australians navigate workplace disputes. We understand how allegations, whether proven or not, can be misused to justify a dismissal. We offer expert representation at the Fair Work Commission through every stage of the process, from lodging your claim to conciliation and, if necessary, a hearing.
Your first consultation with us is complimentary and confidential, and we work on a no win, no fee basis. Call us seven days a week on 1300 766 700.
