Publications

The Fair Work Commission has announced significant procedural reforms to the management of general protections dismissal applications. In a statement released by President Justice Hatcher in November 2025 the Commission identified a rapid and sustained increase in filings, particularly in unfair dismissal and general protections dismissal matters. The volume of these cases has now reached a point where, in the President’s view, the Commission’s existing operational and funding structures are no longer capable of supporting the workload. As a result, immediate changes to forms and processes have been introduced, with additional reforms expected to follow.

Rising application numbers and increasing pressure on the Commission

The statistics outlined in the President’s statement illustrate the scale of the challenge. In the 2024–25 financial year, the Commission received 44,075 applications, which represents a 24 per cent increase above the five-year average. Of those, 6,209 were general protections dismissal applications, a figure that is 27 per cent higher than the five-year average. The first quarter of the 2025–26 financial year has continued this upward trend. During that period, the Commission received 13,671 applications, a number that exceeds the three-year average by 45 per cent. Within that total, 2,102 general protections dismissal claims were lodged, amounting to a 57 per cent increase on the three-year average for the same quarter. Justice Hatcher has indicated that this level of growth places real pressure on the Commission’s capacity to deliver timely and reliable services, not only within dismissal jurisdictions but across its wider statutory functions.

Stage one of the reforms – updated forms and lodgement requirements

The first stage of the reform program focuses on significant changes to the application and response forms and the initial handling of matters. The new forms require a higher standard of detail and clarity from both applicants and respondents. Applicants must now identify the specific provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) that they allege have been contravened and must explain the factual basis for those allegations.

Where an applicant seeks permission to be legally represented, they must provide a written submission that sets out the reasons why representation is appropriate. This replaces the previous practice of simply selecting a box to request representation. If an application is lodged outside the 21-day statutory timeframe, the applicant must now provide a detailed explanation as to why exceptional circumstances exist. The former form only required an indication that an extension was sought.

The response form that employers responding to applications complete has been amended in a similar vein. Employers are now required to identify and explain any jurisdictional objections at the time of filing their response. These objections must be set out in a detailed and reasoned way rather than being raised by reference only to jurisdiction. The changes are intended to ensure that matters begin with enough information to allow the Commission to identify the issues and direct the matter more efficiently.

Representation decisions determined before conference

A further reform concerns representation. Under section 596 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) parties generally require permission from the Fair Work commission in order to be legally represented during proceedings. Prior to the changes discussed in this article, permission was usually sought (and determined) at the start of a conference, conciliation or arbitration. At times, this caused delay and other difficulties, particularly if permission to appear is refused (and a party seeks to postpone the matter as a result).

Requests for permission to be represented by a lawyer or paid agent will now be determined before the conciliation conference (which precedes arbitration) takes place and will be decided on the papers. This approach provides clarity in advance for both parties and reduces the likelihood of postponements caused by last-minute disagreements about representation.

Early review of late or defective applications

The President has also announced changes to the handling of late or non-compliant applications. Under the new approach, a Member of the Commission will review any application that appears to be out of time or incomplete before it is served on the employer. If the Member concludes that there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension, or that the application is otherwise fundamentally defective, the matter may be dismissed at that stage. The purpose of this reform is to prevent employers from expending time and resources on matters that have little prospect of progressing and to reduce unnecessary administrative burden on the Commission.

Stage two – reforms to the conference process

The second stage of the reform program focuses on the conduct of conciliation conferences. It is expected that these changes will be rolled out by the end of this year. The Commission is currently trialling a revised conference process that places a stronger emphasis on early settlement and more practical dispute resolution. Feedback from Commission users indicated that traditional procedural conferences could be lengthy, repetitive and not always productive. The revised approach aims to streamline the process and to ensure that conferences are directed towards genuine settlement discussions.

The Commission is also considering whether the existing seven-day deadline for respondents to file a response should be extended. Many employers, particularly smaller businesses without dedicated internal resources, have expressed concern that the current timeframe is too short to allow them to gather information and obtain proper advice.

Future stages – broader review of general protections and unfair dismissal processes

The President’s statement makes it clear that the reforms introduced so far are only the first of a series of upcoming changes. Once the Commission has had an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the initial changes, it intends to broaden the review to include non-dismissal general protections claims and unfair dismissal applications. This indicates a longer-term intention to modernise and re-balance the Commission’s approach to high-volume jurisdictions.

Future implications

For practitioners, the reforms will require greater precision and preparation at the lodgement stage. Applicants and their representatives will need to ensure that claims are clearly articulated from the outset, with a direct connection drawn between the statutory provision relied upon and the factual circumstances of the dismissal. Respondents must also engage earlier and in a more structured way, particularly when identifying any jurisdictional objections. The increased formality of the early stages may result in more applications being dismissed at a preliminary level where forms are incomplete, or claims are not properly substantiated. At the same time, the changes may promote more efficient and transparent handling of matters that are genuinely arguable.

There is, however, a need to monitor the effect of these reforms on self-represented applicants and those who lack legal assistance. The higher standard of detail required may present difficulties for individuals who do not have a strong understanding of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) or the ability to put forward a detailed submission.

The reforms to the management of general protections dismissal applications represent a shift in the Commission’s approach to one of its fastest-growing jurisdictions. They aim to address the increasing pressure on the system by encouraging more detailed applications, earlier identification of issues and more efficient case management. As further stages of the review are introduced, the practical consequences for applicants, employers and practitioners will become clearer. What is already evident though is that the Commission expects a higher level of preparation from parties at the outset and is moving towards a more structured and settlement-focused system for resolving general protections dismissal disputes.

This article was published on 3 December by Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers and is based on the relevant state of the law (legislation, regulations and case law) at that date for the jurisdiction in which it is published. Please note this article does not constitute legal advice. If you ever need legal advice or want to discuss a legal problem, please contact us to see if we can help. You can reach us on 1800 059 278 or via the Contact us page on our website.