s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - extension of time not granted.

• [1] On 12 October 2025, Mr Louis Baziotis made an unfair dismissal application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). Mr Baziotis was employed by Endeavour Group Ltd (Endeavour Group) until his dismissal on 11 October 2024. Mr Baziotis' application was lodged on 12 October 2025, therefore his application was lodged 345 days after the 21-day time limit.

• [2] Section 394(2) requires unfair dismissal applications to be made within 21 days after the dismissal took effect, or such further period as the Commission allows under s.394(3). Mr Baziotis requires an extension of time in order for his application to proceed. The Commission may only extend time if it is satisfied that there are 'exceptional circumstances' taking into account the matters in s.394(3).

• [3] It appears from his application that Mr Baziotis' explanation for the the delay can be summarised as follows:

• [4] After obtaining a copy of the workers compensation investigation report from Gallagher Bassett in September 2025, Mr Baziotis formed the view that Endeavour Group had failed to comply with its own procedures and did not conduct itself appropriately during his Workers Compensation Claim investigation.

• [5] The investigation report produced by CHS Australia put his wife's two commercial interests at risk and he therefore felt compelled to make a claim for unfair dismissal.

• [6] At the time of his dismissal Mr Baziotis' mental health declined and he remained "absent in the mindset" for at least a couple of months after the dismissal took effect.

• [7] The facts in this matter are that Mr Baziotis was notified on 25 September 2024 that an investigation was being conducted into allegations against him for inappropriate workplace conduct. On 2 October 2024, he was provided with a written notice detailing the allegations and he was invited to attend a meeting to discuss the allegations on 7 October 2024. Mr Baziotis provided a response to the allegations and was subsequently dismissed on 11 October 2024.

• [8] Mr Baziotis filed a Worker's Injury Claim (WC Claim) with WorkSafe Victoria on 16 October 2024. On 15 November 2024, Gallagher Bassett notified Mr Baziotis that his WC Claim for the alleged mental health injury that he says he sustained due to the events that took place on and after 25 September 2024 had been rejected pending further investigation. Mr Baziotis participated in the investigation pertaining to his claim which was conducted by CHS Australia, and the Circumstances Investigation Report was concluded on 28 November 2024. Mr Baziotis was advised by Gallagher Bassett on 15 January 2025 that his claim had been rejected. Mr Baziotis sought a review of the claim and was notified on 22 April 2025 that the claim had been reviewed, and the decision had been made to reject the claim. On 27 May 2025, Mr Baziotis sought a senior review of the decisions rejecting his claims made on 15 January 2025 and 22 April 2025, he was subsequently advised that the review would be conducted. A review was conducted, and Mr Baziotis was again notified that his claim was unsuccessful. Mr Baziotis then sought a copy of the investigation report which he received on 25 September 2025. After receiving the report Mr Baziotis formed the view that Endeavour Group had not conducted itself appropriately and lodged his unfair dismissal application.

• [9] Mr Baziotis has not adequately identified how his dissatisfaction with the outcome of his WC Claim and the alleged conduct of Endeavour Group during the process of determining the claim are relevant to the termination that occurred nearly a year earlier. Regardless, I do not consider those matters when considered either individually or together point towards there being exceptional circumstances that justify the length of time it took for Mr Baziotis to file his application after his dismissal. It is also evident from the materials filed by Mr Baziotis that he previously held concerns about the reasons for his dismissal when he participated in an interview with CHS on 25 November 2024, and he has not provided a reasonable explanation for why he didn't file his application at that time. Additionally, Mr Baziotis has not provided a reasonable explanation for why it took him a further 17 days after receiving the investigation report on 25 September 2025 to file his unfair dismissal application. Further, the issue Mr Baziotis has with the content of the investigation report pertaining to his wife's commercial interests are irrelevant factors and do not justify the granting of an extension of time after such a significant delay.

• [10] Turning to Mr Baziotis' claim that his mental health was affected, there is no evidence before me to suggest that Mr Baziotis was incapable of making his application on time. Mr Baziotis was able to pursue his WC Claim and disputed the outcome of those claims on several occasions. Therefore, it stands to reason he was capable of making an unfair dismissal application with this Commission.

• [11] I also note that approximately six months prior to lodging his application Mr Baziotis had looked at the Commissions website and contacted the Commission to "make inquiries", however he took no further steps and did not file an application although it was open to him to do so at that time. Mr Baziotis says the reason he didn't file his application at that time was partially because he was not in the mindset to do so. It appears that Mr Baziotis prioritised disputing his WC Claim over making this application. There is nothing exceptional about Mr Baziotis' reasons for the delay that would persuade me to grant an extension of time.

• [12] The evidence demonstrates that Mr Baziotis was able to dispute his WC Claim, and his lengthy submissions made disputing the outcomes suggest he was capable of completing and lodging an application at an earlier time however he had chosen not to do so. Mr Baziotis has not provided a credible and reasonable explanation for the whole period of the delay. I am not satisfied that the reasons relied on for filing his unfair dismissal application 366 days after the dismissal took effect are exceptional or that Mr Baziotis has provided a reasonable explanation for the whole of the delay. This weighs against granting of an extension of time.

• [13] As to the other mandatory considerations in s.394(3) it is not in contention that Mr Baziotis became aware of the dismissal on 11 October 2024, 366 days before the application was made. Whilst I note Mr Baziotis had previously made inquiries about his options with this Commission and made a WC Claim, other than filing this application Mr Baziotis made no other attempts to dispute his dismissal. Mr Baziotis submits that granting the application would not prejudice the employer however his reasoning lacks merit. I have formed the view that accepting the application at such a late stage without proven exceptional circumstances for the significant delay would prejudice the employer. I consider these factors weigh against the granting of an extension of time. Mr Baziotis made no relevant submissions pertaining to s.394(3)(e). However, I note that Mr Baziotis contacted this Commission to make inquiries and instead chose to continue to pursue his WC Claim rather than act on the information provided. I would have thought that a person in a similar position would have taken action immediately as to minimise any further delay. This weighs against the granting of an extension of time.

• [14] As to the merits of the application. Mr Baziotis contends amongst other things, that Endeavour Group failed to comply with its own procedures and provide the information requested of them during the investigation into his WC Claim. Mr Baziotis says that prior to his dismissal he had not received any warnings and there were no deficiencies in his conduct.

• [15] Endeavour Group submit it held a valid reason for the dismissal because Mr Baziotis had breached its policies and procedures including engaging in conduct it considered to be sexual harassment of a co-worker which it says is serious misconduct.

• [16] The Commission cannot make any findings on contested matters without hearing evidence and evidence on the merits is rarely called for the purposes of determining an extension of time. As a result, the Commission should not embark on a detailed consideration of the substantive application. Accordingly, I have not done so, and therefore I am not able to make a final assessment of the merits because the factual disputes between the parties has not been tested. I therefore find this criterion to be neutral.

• [17] Having considered Mr Baziotis' submissions and evidence as they relate to each of the criteria set out in s.394(3), I am not pursuaded that there are exceptional circumstances warranting the granting of a further period for the making of an application under s.394(3). Accordingly, Mr Baziotis' application is dismissed.

• [18] An order[1] to that effect will be published separately to this decision.

[1] PR795743

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer