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
    • JobKeeper disputes
    • General protections (unlawful actions)
    • Anti-bullying
    • Cooperative Workplaces
    • Industrial action
    • Awards & enterprise agreements disputes
    • Disputes about entry
    • How the Commission works
  • Home
  • Unfair dismissals benchbook
  • Making an application
Back to top

Unfair dismissals 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?
  • Reason for delay
  • Case examples
  • 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
  • References

 

Introduction

See Fair Work Act 2009 s.394(2)–(3)

Contains issues that may form the basis of a jurisdictional issue

The Fair Work Commission may extend the time period for lodging an unfair dismissal 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
  • whether the former employee first became aware of the dismissal after it had taken effect
  • 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]

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]

Related information

  • When does a dismissal take effect?

Case examples

Exceptional circumstances – extension granted

Resignation with future date of effect

Nohra v Target Australia Pty Ltd [2010] FWA 6857 (Roberts C, 22 October 2010), [(2010) 204 IR 389].

Length of time outside timeframe: 15 days

The employee resigned with a future date of effect, to take leave. The letter of resignation effectively gave 7 months’ notice to be the primary carer for her sick mother-in-law. The employer ended the employment while the employee was on carer's leave. The employee believed that the timeframe for lodgment was only relevant to unfair dismissal and not relevant for constructive dismissal.

The extension of time was granted.

Representative error

Robinson v Interstate Transport Pty Ltd (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.

The extension of time was granted.

Note: This was in relation to a general protections claim under s.365 of the Fair Work Act. The extension of time provisions in relation to a general protections claim has identical wording to the extension of time provisions in relation to an unfair dismissal claim.

Illness

Ovenden v Fortezza Pty Ltd T/A High Country Automotive Group [2010] FWA 3863 (Deegan C, 20 May 2010).

Length of time outside timeframe: 26 days

The employee gave evidence that he was suffering from depression and anxiety exacerbated by work stress. The employee had been dismissed while he was on personal leave and was covered by a medical certificate. The employer had refused to accept the medical certificates and had claimed the employee had abandoned his employment.

The extension of time was granted.

Technical issues

Johnson v Joy Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd t/as Joy Mining Machinery [2010] FWA 1394 (Lawler VP, 25 February 2010).

Length of time outside timeframe: 4 days

The employee had attempted twice to lodge the application through the Fair Work website within time but was unable to successfully file the application. The application was then posted to Fair Work Australia. It was held that the applicant had made a bona fide attempt to make an application before the expiry of the 14 day period and that it was just and equitable to exercise the discretion to extend time.

The extension of time was granted.

NOT exceptional circumstances – no extension granted

Christmas period

Smith v KJM Contractors Pty Ltd (2010) 201 IR 356.

Length of time outside timeframe: 8 days

An employee made his application for unfair dismissal 8 days after the 14 day period. Christmas occurred during the 14 day timeframe.

The Commission found that this was not exceptional as the Christmas period was not an unforeseen event.

The extension of time was refused.

Representative error

McLennan v Northern Territory Stolen Generations Aboriginal Corporation [2012] FWA 3167 (Spencer C, 12 April 2012).

Length of time outside timeframe: 1 day

The employee submitted that she thought her representative would file an application for unfair dismissal on her behalf.

It was found that there had been no evidence that the employee gave clear instructions to her representative to lodge an application on her behalf.

The extension of time was refused.

Employee seeking internal review

Gao v Department of Human Services [2011] FWAFB 5605 (Giudice J, Harrison SDP, Asbury C, 23 August 2011).

Length of time outside timeframe: Approx. 7 months

The employee sought a review of matters relevant to the decision to dismiss through an internal process of the employer. The employer provided a response and then the employee requested a further review.

It was found that the circumstances were not sufficient to justify the delay.

The extension of time was refused.

Shock and trauma caused by termination – ignorance of the timeframe

Rose v BMD Constructions Pty Ltd [2011] FWA 673 (Roe C, 1 February 2011).

Length of time outside timeframe: 13 days

The employee filed an application for unfair dismissal 13 days late claiming her reason for not lodging on time was that she was incapacitated by shock from her termination.

The Commission found that the employee was not sufficiently incapacitated by the shock to justify an extension of time.

Ignorance of the timeframe in itself is not sufficient to justify an extension of time.

The extension of time was refused.

Illness

Muir McMeeken v Action Industrial Catering Pty Ltd [2012] FWAFB 5933 (Boulton J, Hamilton DP, Cloghan C, 12 September 2012).

Decision at first instance [2012] FWA 4035 (Williams C, 15 May 2012).

Length of time outside timeframe: Approx. 5 weeks

The employee gave evidence that she was ill during the timeframe for lodgment. The employee followed up complaints with other agencies during the 14 day timeframe. She was hospitalised after the 14 day timeframe had passed.

It was found that ill health may have prevented the employee from making an application for 2 weeks out of the 5 weeks that the application was late.

The extension of time was refused.

Action taken to dispute the dismissal

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

Case examples

Action taken to dispute the dismissal – extension granted

Lodged in the wrong jurisdiction

Palmer v RCR Engineering Pty Ltd [2009] FWA 1431 (McCarthy DP, 2 December 2009).

Length of time outside timeframe: 25 days

The employee initially lodged his application within the time frame however in the wrong jurisdiction. The employee lodged their application within 3 days of becoming aware of the jurisdictional issue.

The Commission found in this case it was clear that the employee took action to contest his termination of employment almost immediately but in the wrong jurisdiction. Had the application been lodged in the correct jurisdiction it would have been well within the time allowed by the Fair Work Act 2009.

The extension of time was granted.

Lodged in the wrong jurisdiction

Poulton v Rail Infrastructure Corporation, PR966972 (AIRCFB, Watson SDP, Hamberger C, Richards C, 22 December 2005).

Length of time outside timeframe: Approx. 21 months

The employee sought but was unable to get advice as to which was the correct jurisdiction to apply to. There was uncertainty about where he should lodge his application and the lodgment in the incorrect jurisdiction was not unreasonable.

The extension of time was granted.

Action NOT taken to dispute the dismissal – no extension granted

Employee seeking to resolve matter internally

Prasad v Alcatel-Lucent Australia Ltd (2011) 209 IR 236.

Length of time outside timeframe: Approx. 4 months

The employee was working under a subclass 457 visa and was made redundant after a restructure. The employee obtained legal advice about unfair dismissal some months after the redundancy.

The extension of time was refused.

Lodged in the wrong jurisdiction

Robertson v Zeugma Electrical and Communications Services Pty Ltd [2010] FWA 4525 (McCarthy DP, 17 June 2010).

Length of time outside timeframe: Approx. 6 weeks

The employee lodged an application for unfair dismissal with the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission and submitted she did not know this was the wrong jurisdiction.

The Commission found that mere inadvertence or accident is not sufficient alone to warrant an exceptional circumstance for the extension of time.

The extension of time was refused.

Lodged in wrong jurisdiction

Parkes v Melena Pty Ltd t/as Ekas Market Research Services, PR943310 (AIRCFB, Giudice J, Duncan SDP, Larkin C, 5 February 2004).

Length of time outside timeframe: Approx. 17 months

The employee lodged their application 6 months late in the incorrect jurisdiction. After the employee discovered that her first application was lodged in the wrong jurisdiction she took a further 10 months to lodge an application with the Commission. It was found that no exceptional circumstances existed.

The extension of time was refused.

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

Prejudice to the employer – extension granted

Carfoot v SAC Sydney Archdiocese T/A St Vincent De Paul Society

Carfoot v SAC Sydney Archdiocese T/A St Vincent De Paul Society [2010] FWA 4080 (Raffaelli C, 10 June 2010).

Length of time outside timeframe: 5 days

The employer argued it would be prejudiced by an extension of time being granted. The Commission found that any prejudice caused due to the short delay would be minimal.

The extension of time was granted.

Prejudice to the employer – NO extension granted

Druett v Rail Corporation New South Wales (RailCorp)

Druett v Rail Corporation New South Wales (RailCorp) [2008] AIRC 363 (Cartwright SDP, 28 April 2008).

Leave to appeal refused [2008] AIRCFB 599 (Watson VP, Drake SDP, Spencer C, 20 August 2008), [(2008) 176 IR 32].

Length of time outside timeframe: Approx. 28 years

The employer demonstrated prejudice caused by the delay. The employer had no record of employment other than an employment history card.

The Commission found that there was no merit to the application. Extending the time for lodgment of an application for which there was no jurisdiction was a pointless exercise. Moreover, to do so would be unfair to previous unsuccessful applicants in like positions.

The extension of time was refused.

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.

The extension of time was refused.

Note: This was in relation to a general protections claim under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The extension of time provisions in relation to a general protections claim has identical wording to the extension of time provisions in relation to an unfair dismissal claim.

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

Merits of the matter – extension granted

Applicant v Respondent

Applicant v Respondent [2012] FWA 2111 (Sams DP, 22 March 2012).

Length of time outside timeframe: 9 days

The employee claimed that he was shocked at being dismissed in circumstances where he had been made redundant 3 months earlier (although not paid any redundancy benefits) and immediately re-engaged. He said that he was not given a written notice of his termination of employment and has still not received one.

The merits of the case were described as the strongest factor in the employee's favour.

The extension of time was granted.

Dundas-Taylor v The Cuisine Group Pty Ltd

Dundas-Taylor v The Cuisine Group Pty Ltd [2011] FWAFB 6008 (Acton SDP, McCarthy DP, Spencer C, 5 September 2011), [(2011) 212 IR 265].

Length of time outside timeframe: 41 days

The employee lodged an initial application for unfair dismissal before he had been dismissed. His subsequent application was lodged after 14 days.

The decision at first instance denied the employee an extension on the basis of the merits of the case.

On appeal the Full Bench found that there was insufficient evidence in the first instance to conclude that the merits would be anything less than a neutral consideration.

The extension of time was granted.

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

The key issue is that the applicant seeking an extension of time is considered in relation to other applicants employed by the same employer, and affected by the same issue, who filed applications in time.[27]

References

[1] Ho v Professional Services Review Committee No 295 [2007] FCA 388 (26 March 2007) at para. 25; citing R v Kelly [2000] QB 198, 208; cited in Nulty v Blue Star Group Pty Ltd [2011] FWAFB 975 (Lawler VP, Sams DP, Williams DP, 16 February 2011) at para. 13, [(2011) 203 IR 1].

[2] ibid.

[3] ibid.

[4] ibid., at para. 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] FWAFB 975 (Lawler VP, Sams DP, Williams DP, 16 February 2011) at para. 14, [(2011) 203 IR 1].

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

[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 (AIRCFB, Williams SDP, Acton SDP, Gregor C, 21 November 2000) at para. 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 (21 July 1964); cited in Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, 547. See Jervis v Coffey Engineering Group Pty Limited, PR927201 (AIRCFB, Marsh SDP, Duncan SDP, Harrison C, 3 February 2003) at para. 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 (AIRCFB, Giudice J, Acton SDP, Gay C, 10 November 2000) at para. 14.

[24] ibid.

[25] ibid.

[26] ibid.

[27] Whittle v Redi Milk Australia Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 3773 (Ryan C, 14 June 2016) at para. 38.

Updated time

Last updated

15 January 2020

 

 

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