s.365 - Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal - jurisdictional objection - whether Applicant dismissed - jurisdictional objection upheld - Applicant was not dismissed within the meaning of s 386(1) of the Fair Work Act.

• [1] On the 21 October 2025, Mr John Mahoney (the Applicant) lodged an application pursuant to s 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) in which he asserts that the termination of his employment on 15 October 2025 by Carsales.com.au Pty Ltd (the Respondent) contravened his workplace rights. In its Form F8A response the Respondent raised a jurisdictional objection to the application, that being the Applicant was not an employee and was therefore not dismissed within the meaning of s 386 of the Act.

• [2] The Respondent's jurisdictional objection is significant because the Applicant must have been dismissed in order to make a general protections dismissal dispute application[1]. Where there is a dispute about whether a person was dismissed, the Commission must determine that point before exercising its powers under s. 368 of the Act[2]. Consequently, the issue for determination is whether the Applicant was dismissed from his employment within the meaning of s. 386 of the Act. The matter was listed for hearing on 22 December 2025 in advance of which both parties filed material in accordance with the directions issued.

• [3] For reasons given on transcript on 24 December 2025, I have found that the Applicant was not an employee of the Respondent, was not dismissed within the meaning of s 386 of the Act and is therefore unable to make a general protections dismissal dispute application The application must be dismissed. An order giving effect to this decision will be separately issued.

[1] Coles Supply Chain Pty Ltd v Milford [2020] FCFAC 152; [2021] HCASL 37.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer