Skip to main content

Ribbon

  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Glossary
  • News & media
Fair Work Commission logo

Fair Work Commission

Australia's national workplace relations tribunal
Search is closed
Menu is closed

Search

Main menu

  • Awards & agreements
    • Minimum wages & conditions
    • Awards
    • Agreements
    • Legislation & regulations for awards & agreements
  • Cases, decisions & orders
    • Major cases
    • Summaries of significant decisions
    • Decisions by keywords
    • FWC Bulletin
    • Archived decisions & orders
    • Transcripts
    • Court reviews
    • Historical cases
  • Registered organisations
    • Fact sheets, templates & webinars
    • Find registered organisations
    • Find State-recognised associations
    • Registration
    • Running a registered organisation
    • Entry permits
    • Industrial action
    • Gazette notices
    • Lodgment
  • Resources
    • Online lodgment
    • Forms
    • Where to get legal help
    • Research
    • Workplace Relations Education Series
    • Benchbooks
    • Fact sheets, guides & videos
    • Practice notes
    • Resources in other languages
    • Case studies
    • Quarterly practitioner updates
    • Related sites
  • Termination of employment
    • Unfair dismissal
    • General protections dismissal
    • Unlawful termination
    • How the Commission works
  • Disputes at work
    • Fairness in the workplace
    • Resolving issues at the Commission
    • Cooperative Workplaces program
    • JobKeeper disputes
    • General protections (unlawful actions)
    • Anti-bullying
    • Industrial action
    • Awards & enterprise agreements disputes
    • Disputes about entry
    • How the Commission works
  • Home
  • General protections benchbook
  • Making an application
  • Dismissal applications
Back to top

General protections benchbook

An overview of legal procedure & case law

Extension of time for lodging an application

Print this page

 

Table of contents

On this page

  • Introduction
  • What are exceptional circumstances?
  • Case examples
  • Reason for delay
  • Representative error
  • Action taken to dispute the dismissal
  • Case examples
  • Prejudice to the employer
  • Case examples
  • Merits of the application
  • Case examples
  • Fairness as between the person and other persons in a similar position
  • Case examples
  • References

 

Introduction

Contains issues that may form the basis of a jurisdictional issue

The Fair Work Commission may extend the time period for lodging a dismissal dispute application only if the Commission is satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances for not lodging the application on time.

The Commission will take into account:

  • the reasons for the delay
  • any action taken by the former employee to dispute the dismissal
  • prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay)
  • the merits of the application, and
  • fairness between the former employee and other persons in similar positions.

What are exceptional circumstances?

These are circumstances that are:

  • out of the ordinary course
  • unusual
  • special, or
  • uncommon.[1]

They need not be:

  • unique
  • unprecedented, or
  • very rare.[2]

Exceptional circumstances are NOT regularly, routinely or normally encountered.[3]

Exceptional circumstances may be a single exceptional event or a series of events that together are exceptional.[4] The assessment of whether exceptional circumstances exist requires a consideration of ALL the relevant circumstances.[5]

Ignorance of the timeframe for lodgment is not an exceptional circumstance.[6]

Case examples

Exceptional circumstances

Representative error

Robinson v Interstate Transport Pty Ltd [2011] FWAFB 2728 (Watson SDP, Drake SDP, Harrison C, 17 May 2011), [(2011) 211 IR 347].

Length of time outside timeframe: 3 days

The employee’s initial representative overlooked a reminder to file the application for a general protections claim. The employee had given specific instructions to his representative to file the claim.

On appeal it was found that he was entitled to rely on his representative and was blameless in relation to the delay.

Various reasons

Wayne Candy v Structural Cranes Pty Ltd [2012] FWA 5878 (Harrison DP, 12 July 2012).

Length of time outside timeframe: 2 days

The reasons for the delay were a combination of the applicant’s representative being absent on pre-arranged leave, the applicant’s inability to obtain another solicitor who would take the matter without guarantee of payment and the applicant’s state of health, which caused him to miss a meeting with his solicitor on the next working day after the date the application was due.

Whilst any one of these circumstances taken separately might not satisfy the criteria of ‘exceptional’, taken together they satisfied the criteria for admission of the application out of time.

Impairment of cognitive capacity

Ellis v Melton Shire Council [2012] FWA 1033 (Lewin C, 8 February 2012).

Length of time outside timeframe: 48 days

The applicant was suffering from severe impairment of her cognitive capacity to make the application within the period between the termination of her employment until sometime not long before it was made. This was confirmed by descriptive evidence from her doctor of the psychological condition she suffered after the termination of her employment.

Technical issues

Paterson v Sunraysia Crane and Rigging Pty Ltd T/A Sunraysia Crane and Rigging [2011] FWA 2496 (Ryan C, 27 April 2011).

Length of time outside timeframe: 101 days

The critical reason for the delay concerned a simple filing error made by the barrister briefed to prepare and file the application in circumstances where the simple error was not readily identifiable by either the barrister or the Commission who received the application through the eFiling system.

Error in initial application

Lane v Kangaroo Island Dive & Adventures Pty Ltd [2010] FWA 3939 (O’Callaghan SDP, 25 May 2010).

Length of time outside timeframe: 12 days

The applicant made an initial application under s.773 within time. The application was made in error as s.773 was not available in that situation. The applicant did not become aware of the error until the conference.

To the extent that this explained the subsequent delay in lodgment of the correct application, the Commission considered it represented an acceptable reason for the delay.

Lodged in wrong jurisdiction

Gough v LifeAid Pty Ltd [2010] FWA 2481 (Richards SDP, 15 April 2010).

Length of time outside timeframe: 16 days

In the first place the applicant made an application within the time limit to the Fair Work Ombudsman. He was then advised to make an application to the Commission.

The Commissioner said a confused state of mind about the proper basis of an application to the correct public body might not itself provide an exceptional circumstance, however the Fair Work Ombudsman did not respond to registered mail until nine days after it was sent and was therefore responsible for the subsequent period of delay.

NOT exceptional circumstances

Mental state

Kuruppuarachchige v Curry Leaf Sri Lankan Restaurant Pty Ltd [2012] FWA 8205 (Deegan C, 20 September 2012).

Length of time outside timeframe: 562 days

The Commission was prepared to accept that the termination had an effect on the applicant’s state of mind but was not prepared to accept that this condition existed for almost 2 years.

The Commission also did not accept that the applicant’s limited English or lack of knowledge of the time limit for lodgment rendered the situation exceptional.

Representative error and illness

Ballarat Truck Centre Pty Ltd v Kerr [2011] FWAFB 5645 (Acton SDP, Kaufman SDP, Williams C, 29 September 2011).

Length of time outside timeframe: 28 days

The applicant was successful at first instance in arguing that she could not file an application within the requisite time because she was suffering anxiety and depression-related illnesses. This was rejected on appeal.

Evidence showed that the applicant could engage in formal dealings relating to her dismissal because she was able to contact JobWatch and WorkSafe for assistance, write to the owner of the employer, meet with a solicitor to complete a WorkCover claim and provided a written summary of events.

Applicant acted on suggestion of Fair Work Ombudsman

McConnell v A & PM Fornataro T/A Tony’s Plumbing Service [2011] FWAFB 466 (Lawler VP, O’Callaghan SDP, Bissett C, 31 January 2011).

Length of time outside timeframe: 64 days

The applicant acted on the comments of the Fair Work Ombudsman that caused him to make an application for unfair dismissal. He later decided to seek an application under the general protections provisions on the advice of his representative.

At all times the matter was left to the judgment of the applicant himself to consider as to what manner of approach he sought to take in relation to the circumstances. Nothing in the action of the Fair Work Ombudsman was obligatory or directive in relation to the decision-making of the employee.

Pursuing another claim

Smith v Signature Security Group [2010] FWA 7803 (Williams C, 6 October 2010).

Length of time outside timeframe: 108 days

The applicant said that part of the delay in lodging the application was because of delays in appointments with the insurer regarding his worker’s compensation claim.

There was no reason why the applicant could not lodge his application immediately after his dismissal because it is a separate and independent claim that is not related to any workers’ compensation issues.

Concerns about future employment prospects

The Applicant v Origin Energy Ltd [2010] FWA 3181 (Hamberger SDP, 19 April 2010).

Length of time outside timeframe: 20 days

The Commission did not find the applicant’s fears about any potential damage to his employment prospects from lodging an application prior to obtaining a new job a convincing explanation for his delay.

Reason for delay

The Commission must consider the reason for the delay.[7]

The absence of any explanation for any part of the delay, will usually weigh against an applicant in such an assessment. Similarly a credible explanation for the entirety of the delay, will usually weigh in the applicant’s favour, though, it is a question of degree and insight. However, the ultimate conclusion as to the existence of exceptional circumstances will turn on a consideration of all of the relevant matters (including the reason for delay) and the assignment of appropriate weight to each.[8]

Representative error

A late lodgment of an application due to representative error may be grounds for an extension of time.[9]

There is a distinction between a delay caused by the representative where the employee is blameless and when the employee has contributed to the delay.[10]

The actions of the employee are the central consideration in deciding whether the explanation of representative error is acceptable.[11]

Where an application is delayed because the employee has left the matter in the hands of their representative and has not followed up their claim, the extension may be refused.[12]

Where an employee has given clear instructions to lodge an application and the representative has failed to do so, the extension may be granted.[13]

A representative error is only one of a number of factors to be considered in deciding whether to extend the timeframe for lodgment.[14]

A representative error includes inactivity or failure to act promptly.[15]

Action taken to dispute the dismissal

Action taken by the employee to contest the dismissal, other than lodging a dismissal application, may favour granting an extension of time.[16]

Case examples

Action taken to dispute the dismissal

Direct communication with employer

Wilson v Woolworths [2010] FWA 2480 (Richards SDP, 15 April 2010).

Length of time outside timeframe: 15 days

The applicant attempted to address matters by way of direct communication with the respondent after his employment had been terminated.

That is a matter which displays an intention to contest the application and to demonstrate to the respondent that despite the decision to terminate his employment, the issues in contest had not reached finality and the respondent was therefore on notice that the matters would be contested in the future.

Action NOT taken to dispute the dismissal

Dwyer v Verifact Pty Ltd T/A Verifact Security

Dwyer v Verifact Pty Ltd T/A Verifact Security [2013] FWC 2634 (Spencer C, 18 June 2013).

Length of time outside timeframe: Approx 1 year

The applicant provided a large amount of correspondence that he had made with various persons in the respondent, WorkCover, and others. However all of this correspondence took place well after the expiration of the time limit. The applicant did not attempt to dispute the termination of his employment within the statutory time limit.

Prejudice to the employer

Prejudice to the employer will go against granting an extension of time.[17] However the ‘mere absence of prejudice to the employer is an insufficient basis to grant an extension of time’.[18]

A long delay gives rise ‘to a general presumption of prejudice’.[19]

The employer must produce evidence to demonstrate prejudice. It is then up to the employee to show that the facts do not amount to prejudice.[20]

Prejudice to the employer means unfair disadvantage to the employer that was caused by the delay in filing the application.

Case examples

Extension granted - no prejudice to the employer

Hartig v Form 2000 Sheetmetal Pty Ltd

Hartig v Form 2000 Sheetmetal Pty Ltd [2010] FWA 7836 (Ryan C, 8 October 2010).

Length of time outside timeframe: 45 days

The employer argued that the application raised fresh issues which were not relied on in an unfair dismissal application that was previously made and withdrawn.

The Commission could not discern any prejudice that may flow against the respondent merely because the grounds relied upon were different from the grounds relied upon in an unfair dismissal application.

Bradbury v Interact Australia (Victoria) Ltd

Bradbury v Interact Australia (Victoria) Ltd [2010] FWA 4829 (Cribb C, 8 July 2010).

Length of time outside timeframe: 18 days

The respondent highlighted it was a not-for-profit organisation reliant on government funding. The respondent also stated one of its key witnesses was on maternity leave whilst another resides in rural Victoria.

The Commission was not persuaded that the respondent was prejudiced by the delay over and above the usual prejudice that may accompany any grant of an extension of time.

Extension NOT granted - prejudice to the employer

Burke v Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service

Burke v Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service [2011] FWA 1386 (Simpson C, 4 March 2011).

Permission to appeal refused [2011] FWAFB 8480 (Harrison SDP, Richards SDP, Smith C, 8 December 2011).

Length of time outside timeframe: 377 days

The employer argued prejudice due to the significant delay in filing the application. This argument was accepted.

Atkinson v Vmoto Limited; Yi (Charles) Chen; Trevor Beazley

Atkinson v Vmoto Limited; Yi (Charles) Chen; Trevor Beazley [2012] FWA 9043 (Spencer C, 26 October 2012).

Length of time outside timeframe: 142 days

The applicant took action from the time of refusal of wages and immediately upon the dismissal to pursue her entitlements. The applicant acted to have the Commission application filed as soon as she sought advice given her other actions for her entitlements were barred. It was argued that the respondent should not be put to the cost of defending yet another action simply because the applicant’s chosen course was stopped.

The Commission said that acceptance of this application, now aimed at disputing the dismissal, so far out of time would prejudice the employer.

Merits of the application

The merits of the application are a relevant consideration in determining whether to exercise the discretion to extend the timeframe.[21]

A highly meritorious claim may persuade a decision-maker to accept an explanation for delay that would otherwise have been insufficient.[22]

When considering the merits, the Commission may consider whether the employee has a sufficient case.[23] The Commission cannot make any findings on contested matters without hearing evidence.[24] Evidence on the merits is rarely called at an extension of time hearing.[25] As a result of this the Commission ‘should not embark on a detailed consideration of the substantive case’.[26]

Case examples

Extension granted – merits of the matter

Lwin v Manpower Services (Australia) Pty Limited T/A Manpower Professional

Lwin v Manpower Services (Australia) Pty Limited T/A Manpower Professional [2011] FWA 1555 (Simpson C, 21 April 2011).

Length of time outside timeframe: 2 days

The applicant stated that he raised harassment claims in the week before his termination. The termination letter acknowledges that the applicant did make a complaint which was the subject of mediation in the week before his termination.

On that basis the Commission could not say that the application was completely without merit.

Extension NOT granted – merits of the matter

Stein v Bucyrus (Australia) Pty Ltd

Stein v Bucyrus (Australia) Pty Ltd [2010] FWA 5983 (Spencer C, 1 September 2010).

Length of time outside timeframe: 16 days

The letter of termination referred to an event where the applicant lost his temper and verbally abused a customer. It also referred to a second event where the applicant abused a customer or employee of the respondent. The applicant admitted that he did abuse the customer. The applicant’s misconduct would provide a valid reason for dismissal. However the applicant believed that the lodging of his worker’s compensation claim is what led to his dismissal.

The Commission was of the view that the applicant’s case was not a strong one and that the merits of his case did not weigh in favour of granting an extension of time.

Fairness as between the person and other persons in a similar position

This consideration may relate to fairness in matters of a similar kind that:

  • are currently before the Commission, or
  • have been decided in the past.[27]

The comparison should be limited to a comparison of persons who have also had their employment terminated and are capable of lodging an application under s.365.[28]

Case examples

Extension granted – fairness as between applicant and other persons in a similar position

Representative error

Dean-Villalobos v QGC Limited T/A QGC [2013] FWC 1537 (Asbury C, 21 March 2013).

Length of time outside timeframe: 1 day

The applicant took steps to instruct her legal representatives to make an application and executed the necessary documents within the timeframe in which the application was required to be made. Persons who provide clear instructions to legal representatives and execute necessary documents in a reasonable timeframe to allow them to be filed within time limits under the Fair Work Act should not be prejudiced because of the failure on the part of those legal representatives to comply.

It is not unfair to other persons in the same position as the applicant in this case to extend the time limit for filing the application.

Extension NOT granted – fairness as between applicant and other persons in a similar position

Application significantly out of time

Pereira v Department of Human Services [2012] FWA 3782 (Ryan C, 7 May 2012).

Length of time outside timeframe: Approx 30 years

The Commissioner considered that persons in a similar position would have had the benefit of advice at some point in the last 30 years to enable proper action to have been undertaken.

Given that there were some issues that related to the health of the applicant over that period of time, fairness would have suggested that persons in a like position would have sought advice through professional services of some description in a period which would have enabled an application, even if it was out of time, to be made much earlier than 30 years after the event.

References

[1] Ho v Professional Services Review Committee No 295 [2007] FCA 388 [25]; citing R v Kelly [2000] 1 QB 198, 208; cited in Nulty v Blue Star Group Pty Ltd (2011) 203 IR 1 [13].

[2] ibid.

[3] ibid.

[4] ibid., [26].

[5]Stogiannidis v Victorian Frozen Foods Distributors Pty Ltd t/as Richmond Oysters [2018] FWCFB 901 (Ross J, Binet DP, Harper-Greenwell C, 16 February 2018) at para. 38.

[6] Nulty v Blue Star Group Pty Ltd (2011) 203 IR 1 [14].

[7] Fair Work Act s.366(2)(a).

[8]Stogiannidis v Victorian Frozen Foods Distributors Pty Ltd t/as Richmond Oysters [2018] FWCFB 901 (Ross J, Binet DP, Harper-Greenwell C, 16 February 2018) at para. 39.

[9] Clark v Ringwood Private Hospital (1997) 74 IR 413, 418‒420; cited in Davidson v Aboriginal & Islander Child Care Agency (1998) 105 IR 1; cited in McConnell v A & PM Fornataro T/A Tony’s Plumbing Service (2011) 202 IR 59 [35].

[10] ibid.

[11] ibid.

[12] ibid.

[13] ibid.

[14] ibid.

[15] Burns v Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia (Inc), Print T3496 (unreported, AIRCFB, Williams SDP, Acton SDP, Gregor C, 21 November 2000) [28].

[16] Brodie-Hanns v MTV Publishing Ltd (1995) 67 IR 298, 299‒300.

[17] ibid.

[18] ibid.

[19] Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, 556 (McHugh J).

[20] Cowie v State Electricity Commission of Victoria [1964] VR 788; cited in Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, 547. See also Jervis v Coffey Engineering Group Pty Limited), PR927201 (unreported, AIRCFB, Marsh SDP, Duncan SDP, Harrison C, 3 February 2003 [16].

[21] Brodie-Hanns v MTV Publishing Ltd (1995) 67 IR 298, 299‒300.

[22] Haining v Deputy President Drake (1998) 87 FCR 248, 250.

[23] Kyvelos v Champion Socks Pty Ltd, Print T2421 (unreported, AIRCFB, Giudice J, Acton SDP, Gay C, 10 November 2000) [14].

[24] ibid.

[25] ibid.

[26] ibid.

[27] Wilson v Woolworths [2010] FWA 2480 (unreported, Richards SDP, 15 April 2010) [24]‒[29].

[28] Ballarat Truck Centre Pty Ltd v Kerr [2011] FWAFB 5645 (unreported, Acton SDP, Kaufman SDP, Williams C, 29 September 2011) [26].

Updated time

Last updated

16 January 2019

 

 

Bookmark/Search this post

Facebook logo Google+ logo Twitter logo

 

Page feedback

Did you find what you were looking for?

Please note: If you would like a response to your question, please contact us or lodge a complaint. This feedback is only about content on this page and will be used to improve website usability. The comments are not monitored for personal information or workplace complaints. 

Mini sites

  • Annual Report 2013–14
    • Reader's guide
    • 1. Overview
      • President's introduction
      • General Manager's overview
      • Performance summary
      • Major achievements 2013–14
    • 2. About the Commission
      • Who we are and what we do
      • Our structure
      • Outcome and program structure
      • Our clients and stakeholders
        • In focus—Small Business Outreach
      • Our future direction
        • In focus–New website
        • In focus–Virtual tour
        • In focus–Mock hearings
      • Our history
    • 3. Performance reporting
      • Overview
      • Legislative amendments
      • Workload
      • Timeliness benchmarks
      • Resolving disputes
      • Determining unfair dismissal applications
      • Setting the minimum wage
        • In focus–Pay Equity Unit
      • Orders relating to industrial action
        • Case study–Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority
        • Case study–Sydney Water
      • Processes relating to modern awards
        • In focus–4 yearly review of awards
      • Approving agreements
        • Case study–Catholic Education Victoria
        • Case study–Orora Fibre Packaging
      • Regulating registered organisations
      • Determining anti-bullying applications
        • In focus–Setting up the anti-bullying jurisdiction
        • Case study–Anti-bullying
      • Key performance indicators
    • 4. Management and accountability
      • Corporate governance
      • Planning and development
      • Ethical standards
      • Accountability
      • Our workforce
      • Employee pay and entitlements
      • Service Charter, complaints and Code of Conduct
      • Financial management
    • 5. Appendices
      • A | Member activities
      • B | List of Members
      • C | Panel assignments
      • D | Methodology for Chart 2–Matters dealt with by the Commission and its predecessors 1998–99 to 2013–14
      • E | Promoting fairness and improving access
      • F | Efficiency and innovation
      • G | Increasing accountability
      • H | Productivity and engaging with industry
      • I | Documents relating to the work of the Commission
      • J | Fair Work Commission addresses
      • K | Lodgment and case load statistics
      • L | Methodology for Chart 6–Number of Commission sittings, various
      • M | Subscription services
      • N | Information on specific statutory requirements
      • O | Fraud Control Certificate
      • P | Fair Work Commission Service Charter
      • Q | Financial statements
        • Independent Audit Report
        • Statement by the General Manager and Chief Financial Officer
        • Statement of Comprehensive Income
        • Statement of Financial Position
        • Statement of Changes in Equity
        • Cash Flow Statement
        • Schedule of Commitments
        • Schedule of Administered Items
        • Notes to the financial statements
          • Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
          • Note 2: Events after the Reporting Period
          • Note 3: Expenses
          • Note 4: Income
          • Note 5: Fair Value Measurements
          • Note 6: Financial Assets
          • Note 7: Non-financial Assets
          • Note 8: Payables
          • Note 9: Provisions
          • Note 10: Cash Flow Reconciliation
          • Note 11: Contingent Liabilities and Assets
          • Note 12: Senior Executive Remuneration
          • Note 13: Remuneration of Auditors
          • Note 14: Financial Instruments
          • Note 15: Financial Assets Reconciliation
          • Note 16: Administered Income
          • Note 17: Administered Payables
          • Note 18: Administered Cash Flow Reconciliation
          • Note 19: Administered Contingent Liabilities and Assets
          • Note 20: Appropriations
          • Note 21: Compliance with Statutory Conditions for Payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund
          • Note 22: Compensation and Debt Relief
          • Note 23: Reporting of Outcomes
          • Note 24: Net Cash Appropriation Arrangements
      • R | Agency resource statement
      • S | Expenses and resources for outcome
      • T | Glossary
      • U | Acronyms and abbreviations
      • V | List of requirements
    • Letter of transmittal
    • Inquiries and copyright
    • Videos
    • Downloads
  • Annual Report 2014–15
    • Introduction
    • Preliminary information
      • Contents
      • Letter of transmittal
      • Readers guide
    • Part 1 Overview
      • President's introduction
      • General Manager's overview
      • Performance summary
      • Major achievements
    • Part 2 About the Commission
      • Outcome and programme structure
      • Who we are and what we do
      • Our structure
      • Our history
      • Our clients and stakeholders
      • Our future direction
      • Future directions - Continuing the change program
    • Part 3 Performance reporting
      • Overview
      • Legislative amendments
      • Workload
      • Timeliness benchmarks
      • Resolving disputes
      • Unlawful termination disputes
      • Determining unfair dismissal applications
      • Setting the minimum wage
      • Orders relating to industrial action
      • Processes relating to modern awards
      • Enterprise agreements
      • Determining anti-bullying applications
      • Regulating registered organisations
      • Key performance indicators
    • Part 4 Management and accountability
      • Corporate governance
      • Planning and development
      • Workplace health and safety
      • Business continuity
      • Ethical standards
      • Fair Work Commission values
      • Freedom of information
      • Accountability
      • The Commission's workforce
      • Employee pay and entitlements
      • Service Charter, complaints and code of conduct
      • Financial management
      • Agency resource statement
      • Expenses and resources for outcome
    • Acronyms and abbreviations
    • Part 5 Appendices
      • Appendix A
      • Appendix B
      • Appendix C
      • Appendix D
      • Appendix E
      • Appendix F
      • Appendix G
      • Appendix H
      • Appendix I
      • Appendix J
      • Appendix K
      • Appendix L
      • Appendix M
      • Appendix N
      • Glossary
  • Annual Report 2015–16
    • Preliminary information
      • Letter of transmittal
      • Readers' guide
    • Part 1: Overview
      • President's report
      • General Manager's report
    • Part 2: About the Commission
    • Part 3: Performance
      • Performance summary
      • Annual performance statements 2015–16
      • Operational performance
        • Applications lodged
        • Hearings & conferences
        • Information & assistance
        • Major application types
          • Unfair dismissals
          • General protections & unlawful termination disputes
          • Anti-bullying
          • Enterprise agreements
          • Resolving disputes
          • Industrial action
        • New Approaches
        • Setting the minimum wage
        • Modern awards
        • Regulating registered organisations
        • Appeals
      • Significant decisions
      • Case studies
        • Case study: Enterprise agreements pilot
        • Case study: Patrick & the MUA
        • Case study: Encouraging regulatory compliance
    • Part 4: Management & accountability
      • Corporate governance
      • Financial management
      • Other mandatory information
    • Appendices
      • Appendix A: List of Members
      • Appendix B: Panel assignments
      • Appendix C: Member activities
      • Appendix D: Lodgment & case load statistics
      • Appendix E: Registered organisations data
      • Appendix F: Performance reporting for the RSRT
      • Appendix G: Financial statements
      • Appendix H: Subscription services
      • Appendix I: Service charter
      • Appendix J: List of requirements
      • Appendix K: Expense & resources outcome, agency resource statement & financial performance analysis
    • Glossary
    • Acronyms & abbreviations
    • Contact us
  • Annual Wage Review 2013–14
  • Anti-bullying benchbook
    • Glossary & naming conventions
    • Overview of benchbook
    • What is workplace bullying?
    • Who is covered by workplace bullying laws?
      • Definition of ‘worker’
      • Definition of ‘constitutionally-covered business’
        • What is a person conducting a business or undertaking?
        • What is a Territory or a Commonwealth place?
        • What is a constitutional corporation?
        • What is the Commonwealth?
    • When is a worker bullied at work?
      • What does ‘at work’ mean?
      • Risk of continued bullying
      • Reasonable management action
    • Making an application
    • Responding to an application
    • If the worker has been dismissed
    • Commission processes
      • Procedural issues
      • Representation by lawyers and paid agents
    • Evidence
    • Outcomes
      • Dismissing an application
      • Contravening an order of the Commission
    • Associated applications
      • Costs
      • Appeals
      • Role of the Court
  • Corporate Plan 2018–19
    • 1. Message from the General Manager
    • 2. Purpose
    • 3. Operating environment
    • 4. Culture
    • 5. Capability
    • 6. Performance
  • Corporate Plan 2019–20
    • 1. Message from the General Manager
    • 2. Purpose
    • 3. Operating environment
    • 4. Our focus
    • 5. Culture
    • 6. Capability
    • 7. Performance
  • Corporate Plan 2020-21
    • 1. Message from the General Manager
    • 2. Purpose
    • 3. Operating environment
    • 4. Key activities
    • 5. Capability
    • 6. Risk
    • 7. Performance
  • Enterprise agreements benchbook
    • Glossary & naming conventions
    • Overview of benchbook
    • What is an enterprise agreement?
      • Single-enterprise agreement
      • Multi-enterprise agreement
      • Differences between single and multi-enterprise agreements
      • Greenfields agreement
    • Content of an enterprise agreement
      • Permitted matters
      • Coverage
      • Scope – who will be covered?
      • Terms & conditions of employment
      • Base rate of pay
      • Nominal expiry date
      • Mandatory terms
      • Flexibility term
      • Consultation term
      • Dispute settlement term
      • Optional terms
      • Terms that cannot be included
        • Terms that exclude the NES
        • Unlawful terms
        • Designated outworker terms
    • Agreement making process
      • Representation
      • Employee right to be represented
      • Bargaining representatives
    • Bargaining
      • Good faith bargaining
      • How long does bargaining take?
    • Voting
      • Voting process
      • Who can vote?
      • Timeframe for vote
      • Voting methods
      • When is an agreement made?
      • If parties cannot agree
    • Making an application
      • Common defects & issues
        • National Employment Standards
        • Better off overall test
        • Mandatory terms
        • Other terms
        • Pre-approval requirements
        • Forms & lodgment
      • Who must apply
      • Timeframe to apply
      • Material to accompany application
      • Signing an agreement
      • Employer must notify employees
    • Commission approval process
      • Genuine agreement
        • Minor procedural or technical errors
      • Where a scope order is in operation
      • Particular kinds of employees
      • Better off overall test (BOOT)
        • When an agreement passes
        • Classes of employees
        • Which award applies
        • Advice about coverage
        • Loaded rates of pay
      • Public interest test
      • Undertakings
      • Powers of the Commission
    • Associated applications
      • Majority support determinations
      • Authorisations to commence bargaining
        • Single interest employer authorisations
        • Ministerial declaration
        • Low-paid authorisations
      • Scope orders
      • Bargaining orders
      • Serious breach declarations
      • Disputes
      • Workplace determinations
        • Low-paid
        • Industrial action related
        • Bargaining related
      • Role of the Court
      • Appeals
      • Varying enterprise agreements
        • Varying by agreement
        • Ambiguity or uncertainty
        • Discrimination
      • Terminating enterprise agreements
        • Terminating by agreement
        • After its nominal expiry date
      • Terminating individual agreements
  • General Manager reporting requirements
  • General protections benchbook
    • Glossary & naming conventions
    • Overview of benchbook
      • When is a person covered by the general protections?
    • What are the general protections?
    • How do the general protections work?
      • Rebuttable presumption as to reason or intent
    • Coverage for general protections
      • What is a constitutionally-covered entity?
      • What is a Territory or a Commonwealth place?
      • What is a trade and commerce employer?
      • What is a Territory employer?
      • What is a national system employer?
    • What if I am not covered?
    • What is adverse action?
      • What is dismissal?
      • Injuring employee in their employment
      • Altering the position of the employee
      • Discriminating
      • Threatened action and organisation of action
      • Exclusions
    • Workplace rights protections
      • Meaning of workplace right
      • Coercion
      • Undue influence or pressure
      • Misrepresentations
      • Requiring the use of COVIDSafe
    • Industrial activities protections
      • What are industrial activities?
      • Coercion
      • Misrepresentations
      • Inducements – membership action
    • Other protections
      • Discrimination
        • Race
        • Colour
        • Gender identity & sexual orientation
        • Age
        • Physical or mental disability
        • Marital status
        • Family or carer’s responsibilities
        • Pregnancy
        • Religion
        • Political opinion
        • National extraction
        • Social origin
      • Exceptions
      • Temporary absence – illness or injury
      • Bargaining services fees
      • Coverage by particular instruments
      • Coercion – allocation of duties to particular person
    • Sham arrangements
      • Misrepresenting employment
      • Dismissing to engage as independent contractor
      • Misrepresentation to engage as independent contractor
    • Making an application
      • Dismissal applications
        • Timeframe for lodgment
        • Extension of time for lodging an application
      • Non-dismissal applications
      • Other types of applications
        • Multiple actions relating to dismissal
        • Unfair dismissal
        • Unlawful termination
        • Court application
        • Discrimination
    • Power to dismiss applications
    • Evidence
    • Commission process
      • Conferences & hearings
      • Dealing with different types of general protections disputes
      • Rescheduling or adjourning matters
      • Representation by lawyers and paid agents
      • Bias
    • Outcomes
    • Costs
      • When are costs ordered by the Commission?
      • Costs against representatives
    • Appeals
    • Role of the Court
      • Enforcement of Commission orders
      • Types of order made by the Court
  • Industrial action benchbook
    • Glossary & naming conventions
    • What is industrial action?
      • Unprotected industrial action
        • Orders to stop or prevent unprotected industrial action
      • Protected industrial action
        • Immunity
        • Common requirements
        • Employee claim action
        • Employer response action
        • Employee response action
        • Pattern bargaining
    • Taking protected industrial action
      • Protected action ballots
        • Who may apply?
        • Making an application
        • Commission process
        • Varying a protected action ballot order
        • Revoking a protected action ballot order
      • Voting
        • Ballot agents
        • Who may vote – roll of voters
        • Ballot papers
        • Voting procedure
        • Scrutiny of the ballot
        • Results of the ballot
        • When is industrial action authorised?
      • Notice requirements
      • Commencing protected industrial action
    • Payments relating to industrial action
      • Partial work bans
      • Unprotected industrial action – payments
      • Standing down employees
    • Suspension or termination of protected industrial action
      • Powers of the Commission
        • When the Commission may suspend or terminate
        • When the Commission must suspend or terminate
          • Threats to persons or the economy
          • Suspending industrial action
        • Requirements relating to a period of suspension
      • Powers of the Minister
    • Enforcement
    • Appeals
  • JobKeeper benchbook
    • Glossary
    • Introduction
      • Provisions of the Fair Work Act
    • JobKeeper enabling directions – general
      • Service & entitlement accrual
      • When a JobKeeper enabling direction will have no effect
      • Stand downs that are not jobkeeper enabling stand downs
      • Employee requests
    • Jobkeeper enabling stand down directions – entitled employers
      • Directions about duties & location of work
    • Jobkeeper enabling directions – legacy employers
      • Jobkeeper enabling stand down directions – legacy employers
      • Directions about duties & location of work – legacy employers
      • Termination of a jobkeeper enabling direction – legacy employers
    • Agreements about days or times of work
      • Agreements about days or times of work – entitled employers
      • Agreements about days or times of work – legacy employers
      • Termination of an agreement about days or times of work
    • Employer payment obligations
      • Wage condition
      • Minimum payment guarantee
      • Hourly rate of pay guarantee
    • Agreements about annual leave
    • Protections
    • Disputes we cannot assist with
    • Applications to deal with a dispute
      • Who can make an application
      • Responding to an application
      • Objecting to an application
      • Discontinuing an application
    • Commission process
      • General information
      • Conferences & hearings
      • Procedural issues
    • Evidence
    • Outcomes
      • Contravening an order
      • Appeals
      • Role of the Court
    • Attachments
  • Modern Awards Review 2012
    • Introduction
      • Modern Awards Review 2012
  • Sir Richard Kirby Archives
    • Home
    • Sir Richard Kirby
    • About the Archives
    • Cases
      • Case
      • The Honourable Justice Henry Bournes Higgins (1851–1929)
    • Centenary
    • Exhibitions
      • Exhibition launch: The history of the Australian minimum wage
      • Guide – Opening Exhibition
      • International Industrial Dispute Resolution Conference
        • Speaker – Justice Alan Boulton AO
        • Speaker – Mr Arthur F Rosenfeld
        • Speaker – Mr Craig Smith
        • Speaker – Mr James Wilson
        • Speaker – Mr Kieran Mulvey
        • Speaker – Mr Peter Anderson
        • Speaker – Ms Ginette Brazeau
        • Speaker – Ms Nerine Kahn
        • Speaker – Ms Rita Donaghy CBE
        • Speaker – Ms Sharan Burrow
        • Speaker – Senator Guy Barnett
        • Speaker – The Hon. Julia Gillard
      • The Journey
        • Court
          • Early years
          • New court
            • Profile of Justice O'Connor
            • First registration of an industrial organisation
          • Judges & conciliators
          • The Boilermakers' Case
            • The dispute & appeals
        • Commission
          • Post Boilermakers 1956-1973
          • Hawke & Keating governments
            • Industrial Relations Court
          • Howard Government
        • Fair Work Australia
          • The Fair Work system
          • About Fair Work Australia
          • Transition
          • Fair Work timeline
      • The history of the Australian minimum wage
        • The Great Strikes
        • The first minimum wage: The Victorian minimum wage
        • The Harvester Decision
        • The impact of the Great Depression
        • Working it out: Cost of living versus capacity to pay
        • The removal of award rate discrimination
        • The wage explosion & economic crisis
        • The modern era: The development of a modern minimum wage
      • Treasures of the archives
        • Launch speech?Treasures of the Archives
        • 1. Professor Isaac
        • 2. Register of organisations
        • 3. Perlman letters
        • 4. Sir Richard Kirby photograph
        • 5. Oral history program
        • 6. AIRC sign
        • 7. Folder of wage decisions
        • 8. Centenary exhibition
        • 9. Women's exhibition poster
        • 10. Isaac letters
    • The modern era
    • Past Presidents
    • Past Members
      • Past Members 1956 to present
      • Past Members to 1956
  • Unfair dismissals benchbook
    • Overview of unfair dismissal
    • Glossary & naming conventions
    • Coverage for unfair dismissal
      • Who is protected from unfair dismissal?
      • People excluded from national unfair dismissal laws
        • Independent contractors
        • Labour hire workers
        • Vocational placements & volunteers
        • Public sector employment
      • Constitutional corporations
      • High income threshold
      • Modern award coverage
      • Application of an enterprise agreement
      • What is the minimum period of employment?
        • How do you calculate the minimum period of employment?
        • What is continuous service?
        • What is an excluded period?
      • Bankruptcy
      • Insolvency
    • What is dismissal?
      • When does a dismissal take effect?
      • Terminated at the employer's initiative
      • Forced resignation
      • Demotion
      • Contract for a specified period of time
      • Contract for a specified task
      • Contract for a specified season
      • Training arrangement
      • What is a transfer of employment?
      • Periods of service as a casual employee
      • What is a genuine redundancy?
        • Job no longer required due to changes in operational requirements
        • Consultation obligations
        • Redeployment
      • What is the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code?
    • What makes a dismissal unfair?
      • Valid reason relating to capacity or conduct
        • Capacity
        • Conduct
      • Notification of reason for dismissal
      • Opportunity to respond
      • Unreasonable refusal of a support person
      • Warnings – unsatisfactory performance
      • Size of employer's enterprise and human resources specialists
      • Other relevant matters
    • Making an application
      • Application fee
      • Timeframe for lodgment
      • Extension of time for lodging an application
      • Who is the employer?
      • Multiple actions
      • Discontinuing an application
    • Objecting to an application
    • Commission process
      • Conciliation
      • Hearings and conferences
      • Preparing for hearings and conferences
      • Representation by lawyers and paid agents
      • Rescheduling or adjourning matters
      • Bias
    • Remedies
      • Reinstatement
        • Order for reinstatement cannot be subject to conditions
        • Order to maintain continuity
        • Order to restore lost pay
      • Compensation
        • Calculating compensation
        • Mitigation
        • Remuneration
        • Other relevant matters
        • Compensation cap
        • Instalments
    • Dismissing an application
    • Evidence
    • Costs
      • Costs against representatives
      • Security for costs
    • Appeals
      • Staying decisions
    • Role of the Court
  • Waltzing Matilda and the Sunshine Harvester Factory
    • Introduction
    • The book
      • Book launch
    • The film
      • Film launch
    • Historical material
      • 38 Hour Week Wage Principle [1983]
      • 40 Hour Week Case [1947]
      • 44 Hour Week Case [1927]
      • Apprenticeship indentures
      • Australian Minimum Wage and fitter (trades) rate since 1906
      • Boot Trades Case
      • Careers in Bootmaking and Boot Repairing
      • Cattle Industry Case 1966
      • Commercial Printing Case [1936]
      • Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904
      • Cost of living newspaper articles from the early 1900s
      • Debates
      • Equal Pay Case 1969
      • Equal Pay Case 1972
      • Fruit Pickers Case
      • Gas Employees Case
      • Graph of Australian Minimum Wage since 1906
      • Harvester Case
      • Historic case judgments on the Fair Work Commission's website
      • Kingston's evidence
      • Linesmen's Case
      • Maternity Leave Case [1979]
      • Metal trades base level minimum wages [1967–2015]
      • Methods of wage adjustment
        • Establishing an Australian Minimum Wage 1907?1922
          • The origins of the Australian minimum wage
          • The 'needs' principle and 'capacity to pay'
          • Women's wages
          • First indexation decision
        • Quarterly indexation 1922–1953
        • The Great Depression 1931
        • Prosperity loadings 1937
        • World War II 1939–1945
        • The post-war period: 1953–1965 basic wage inquiries
        • The total wage 1966–1967
        • Removal of discrimination in award rates
        • Reintroduction of quarterly wage indexation 1975–1978
        • Six monthly wage indexation 1978–1981
        • Wage explosion 1981–1982
        • Reforming awards and work and management practices 1987–1991
        • Six monthly wage indexation 1983–1987
        • Enterprise bargaining and a minimum wage safety net 1991–1996
        • Statutory adjustments
        • The minimum wage in real terms
      • Mrs Beeton's cookbook
      • Paternity Leave Case [1990]
      • Personal/Carer's Leave Test Case [1995]
      • Piddington report
      • Re Bagshaw [1907]
      • Significant cases on the Fair Work Commission's website
      • Statistics for the purpose of comparison with the Australian minimum wage
      • The Amalgamated Society of Engineers v. The Adelaide Steam-ship Company Limited and Others
      • The Australian minimum wage from 1906
      • The Federated Marine Stewards and Pantrymen's Association v. The Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association and Others
      • The Victorian minimum wage 1896
        • Legislative Council Second Reading Speech to the Factories and Shops Bill 1896
      • The first Award: 1906 Steam-ship Crew
      • 100 years of the minimum wage—Statistical comparison
    • Mrs Beeton's cookbook
    • Glossary
    • Related sites
    • Educational materials
  • AWRS First Findings report

Footer

  • Site map
  • Legal
  • Copyright
  • Accessibility

Coronavirus (COVID-19) information