Stay connected.   Subscribe  to our newsletter
Law

Compensation for building manager terminated days after WorkCover claim

By Amelia McNamara | June 12, 2026|5 minute read
Compensation For Building Manager Terminated Days After Workcover Claim

A building manager was fired after what he alleged was extensive unfair treatment, including a snubbed promise to sponsor his visa, incorrect overtime pay, and issues with leave entitlements.

Victorian building manager Ivan Rodriguez had his unfair dismissal claim accepted and was awarded compensation of more than $15,000 following a series of disagreements that resulted in termination without notice.

Following assurances from his managing director, Daniel Hanily, that Centric Facilities would sponsor him for permanent residency, Rodriguez accepted a request to relocate from Melbourne and manage two buildings in Geelong in late 2022.

 
 

During that time, Rodriguez cited ongoing issues regarding correct overtime pay – causing the need for multiple follow-ups – and issues with leave entitlements.

Matters started to escalate in approximately March 2025, at which time he began feeling that Hanily started to treat him differently as a result of concerns raised regarding his entitlements.

Around July 2025, Rodriguez gained additional responsibilities with the understanding that he would work four hours at one site and four hours at another. However, unbeknownst to him at the time, Hanily promised the presence of a full-time building manager to both owners.

When a complaint was made, Hanily told Rodriguez to “start doing it [at] your end”, or he would give the job “to someone else”.

Rodriguez claimed his relationship with Hanily deteriorated further from this point and that Hanily began “nit-picking” and “micro-managing” his work, becoming aggressive and shifting work expectations.

In an August 2025 email, Rodriguez raised issues with Hanily’s treatment of him and complained about potentially racist treatment by residents. Hanily did not respond to these concerns but made amendments to an original email, including the removal of the complaints.

Hanily was later informed of a coffee meeting between Rodriguez and an Edgewater cleaner, and advised that a resident complained that Edgewater was not paying either to be chatting and eating at work.

Following this, Rodriguez made an appointment with his general practitioner to address the stress resulting from ongoing work issues and was issued a medical certificate exempting him from work between 18 and 22 August 2025, before returning to work on 25 August 2025.

Four days later, Hanily asked Rodriguez if he wanted to quit, with Rodriguez expressing that he did not. Hanily also advised Rodriguez at this time that he would receive a warning relating to the coffee meeting with the Edgewater cleaner.

The email from Hanily further stated that “our client will not renew the contract with you as manager”. Rodriguez responded to the email the next day, correcting errors in the warning, but noting he was happy to receive further training and support from Centric Facilities.

Hanily again asked Rodruigez if he was happy in his current employment on 5 September 2025. When Rodriguez said he was, Hanily offered more time to think the matter through, claiming the decision was not what he expected to hear.

Following the receipt of a Certificate of Capacity and WorkCover form from Rodriguez on 7 September 2025, Hanily sent multiple text messages and calls and allegedly refused to submit forms to the WorkCover insurance agent. It forced Rodriguez to contact WorkSafe Victoria directly to submit.

On 9 September 2025, Hanily terminated Rodriguez’s employment in an email that said: “As mentioned I would meet with our client to discuss our contract and their thoughts on working with you. I have now been instructed in no uncertain terms that they want to continue working with Centric FM but without you as the manager. This is an immediate dismissal as of today.”

Following the termination, the chair of Miramar’s owner’s corporation sent correspondence over text that read: “There was never any discussions around the Miramar OC not wanting to work with you.”

It also said: “I believe you and I had a very good working relationship and I was happy to continue on with that relationship.”

Rodriguez made an application for unfair dismissal from Centric Facilities Management under section 394 of the Fair Work Act (Cth) (the act) on 13 September 2025, and the matter was heard on 5 February 2026.

No one from the company, including Hanily, appeared, despite more than 10 attempts to make contact between September and December 2025.

In addition, no requested documents or employer response was received despite multiple requests, and as of 9 June 2026, no correspondence has been received from the company.

The matter was determined based on documentary evidence and the witness of Rodriguez, with commissioner Susan Allison finding the applicant to be “an honest and credible witness”.

It was determined that Centric Facilities did not comply with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code regarding dismissal notice, and the reason was not related to the warnings issued on 2 September 2025. Similarly, allegations of misconduct on Rodriguez’s behalf were determined to be not well founded or substantial enough to justify dismissal.

Further, Allison found a failure to conduct an internal investigation into any complaint raised by Edgewater owners or allegations of racism made by Rodriguez, no formal counselling or chance to improve regarding alleged communication concerns, a lack of clarity about the reason for dismissal, and no opportunity for Rodriguez to respond.

Allison found Rodriguez’s dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy, and the dismissal itself was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable. It was also noted that Rodriguez was a person protected from unfair dismissal at the time of being dismissed.

Similarly, it was considered that Rodriguez was dismissed two days after filing the WorkCover claim, which was not submitted by Hanily, and that Rodriguez had been an employee for almost four years and had relocated to Geelong for the company.

Allison ordered compensation of $15,140.20 plus superannuation to be awarded to Rodriguez.

Case citation: Mr Ivan Rodriguez v Centric Facilities Management Pty Ltd - [2026] FWC 322

RELATED TERMS

Compensation

Compensation is a term used to describe a monetary payment made to a person in return for their services. Employees get pay in their places of employment. It includes income or earnings, commision, as well as any bonuses or benefits that are connected to the particular employee's employment.

Unfair dismissal

When a company terminates an employee's job for improper or illegitimate reasons, it is known as an unfair dismissal.

HR LeaderWant to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.

Amelia McNamara

Amelia is a Professional Services Journalist with Momentum Media, covering Lawyers Weekly, HR Leader, Accountants Daily and Accounting Times. She has a background in technical copy and arts and culture journalism, and enjoys screenwriting in her spare time.