EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 20

Hisense Australia v Naskovski

A Federal Court appeal about whether an employment contract is itself a Fair Work employee record required to be made available for inspection.

Federal Court of Australia22 Jan 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • This appeal narrows one Fair Work recordkeeping point, but it is not a reason to be casual with employment documents.
  • A Federal Court appeal about whether an employment contract is itself a Fair Work employee record required to be made available for inspection.

Use this to check

  • The appeal concerned a narrow Fair Work recordkeeping construction point.
  • An employment contract was not treated as a mandatory reg 3.32 employee record in itself.
  • Employers still need accurate Fair Work records containing the prescribed information.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • Filip Naskovski worked for Hisense Australia as a warranty claims officer.
    • In the underlying Federal Circuit and Family Court proceeding, he alleged adverse action, underpayment and failure to make an employee record available for inspection.
    • The particular appeal to the Federal Court was narrow.
    • Hisense challenged the finding that an employment contract was a type of record required to be kept under reg 3.32 of the Fair Work Regulations and that a request for the contract was therefore a request for an employee record under reg 3.42.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The issue was whether an employment contract is itself a record required to be kept under reg 3.32 of the Fair Work Regulations, and whether a request for that contract is a request to inspect and copy an employee record under reg 3.42, leading to a contravention of s 535 of the Fair Work Act.
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Federal Court granted leave to appeal, heard the appeal immediately and allowed it.
    • The order from the Federal Circuit and Family Court finding a contravention on this recordkeeping issue was set aside.
    • The Court held that the primary judge had conflated an employment contract with the type of employee record Hisense was required to make and keep under s 535 and reg 3.32.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • This appeal narrows one Fair Work recordkeeping point, but it is not a reason to be casual with employment documents.
  • Employers should still keep signed contracts, pay records, classifications, position details and payroll evidence in an accessible system because disputes rarely stay confined to one technical record category.

Useful next steps

  • The appeal concerned a narrow Fair Work recordkeeping construction point.
  • An employment contract was not treated as a mandatory reg 3.32 employee record in itself.
  • Employers still need accurate Fair Work records containing the prescribed information.
  • Signed employment contracts should still be kept because they are central evidence in workplace disputes.
  • Keep signed employment contracts in the employee file even where a technical recordkeeping rule is narrower.

Practical read

This is a narrow but useful employment-records decision. The employee had asked for documents including his employment contract. The earlier court treated the contract as a record Hisense had to make available under the Fair Work employee-record inspection rules. Hisense appealed that point.

The Federal Court held that the Fair Work recordkeeping obligation requires employers to make and keep records containing prescribed information. It does not, by implication, create a separate civil-penalty obligation to keep and produce the employment contract itself under that particular regulation. That was enough for Hisense to win the appeal on this issue.

For operators, the sensible takeaway is not to get clever about refusing documents. Contracts remain critical evidence. Pay slips, classifications, hours, leave, super and pay-rate records still need to be kept properly. If a dispute starts, the business will usually want the signed contract available immediately, even if this decision means the contract is not automatically the same thing as a reg 3.32 employee record.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Keep signed employment contracts in the employee file even where a technical recordkeeping rule is narrower.
  • Keep the prescribed Fair Work records separately and make sure they are legible and accessible.
  • Record award or classification, pay rate, hours, leave and super details in payroll systems.
  • Respond carefully to employee document requests instead of relying on technical distinctions too quickly.
  • Review recordkeeping processes before a dispute, not after an employee asks for documents.

Key takeaways

  • The appeal concerned a narrow Fair Work recordkeeping construction point.
  • An employment contract was not treated as a mandatory reg 3.32 employee record in itself.
  • Employers still need accurate Fair Work records containing the prescribed information.
  • Signed employment contracts should still be kept because they are central evidence in workplace disputes.

Related topics

Employment & Workplace

How Sprintlaw can help

Employment Contract