Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Unfair dismissal

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - Applicant made earlier unfair dismissal application which was dismissed - Applicant seeking to relitigate earlier application - application has no reasonable prospects of success - application dismissed.

• [1] On 8 October 2025, Mr Gary Grist made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) alleging that he was an employee of Raiser Pacific Pty Ltd (the Respondent), that he was dismissed from his employment by the Respondent and that his dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

• [2] Mr Grist worked as a rideshare driver on the Uber app. The Respondent deactivated Mr Grist's driver account on 11 May 2023. Mr Grist made an unfair dismissal application to the Commission in relation to his deactivation on 22 February 2024 (the 2024 Application), outside of the 21-day statutory timeframe prescribed by s.394(2) of the Act.

• [3] The 2024 Application was allocated to Commissioner Schneider for the purposes of determining whether an extension of time should be granted for the filing of the application. Not being satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances, the Commissioner declined to grant an extension of time to Mr Grist and issued a decision dismissing the application on 9 April 2024.[1] Mr Grist did not seek permission to appeal the Commissioner's decision.

• [4] On 8 October 2025, Mr Grist filed this application. Like the 2024 Application, this application relates to Mr Grist's deactivation from the Uber platform on 11 May 2023.

• [5] Upon the matter being allocated to me, I invited Mr Grist to withdraw his application, noting that I would likely issue a decision dismissing his application. He has elected not to do so.

• [6] Section 587 of the Act provides as follows:

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

• [7] Mr Grist made an out-of-time unfair dismissal application to the Commission in 2024 which was dismissed on the basis that there were no exceptional circumstances in relation to the late filing of the application. Mr Grist's present application is made in relation to the same 'dismissal' event, being his deactivation on 11 May 2023.

• [8] This matter has been heard and determined. Mr Grist is not entitled to bring a fresh application and to do so is an abuse of process. I consider that the doctrine of res judicata has relevance, and I exercise my discretion to dismiss the application pursuant to s.587(1)(c) of the Act, finding that the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

• [9] An Order [PR794384] to this effect will be issued.

[1] Grist v Raiser Pacific Pty. Ltd [2024] FWC 900.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer