s.365 - Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal - multiple applications - application dismissed.

[1] On 11 December 2025, Ms Dorothy Lazenkas (Applicant) made an application pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. By that application, which includes numerous annexures, the Applicant says that her dismissal took effect on 21 November 2025. This is consistent with the date stated in a letter from her former employer, provided as Appendix A to the application, which is expressed as a "formal notice" of redundancy. This application was given the matter number U2025/19578 (the Unfair Dismissal Application).

[2] On 2 February 2026, Ms Lazenkas filed a second application, pursuant to s.365 of the Act in which she alleges she was dismissed in contravention of Part 3-1 of the Act. This application was given the matter number C2026/1352 (the General Protections Application). The General Protections Application was allocated to me for determination on 9 February 2026. The General Protections Application relates to the same dismissal as the Unfair Dismissal Application, taking effect on 21 November 2025. As such, the General Protections Application was made 73 days after the dismissal took effect, outside of the 21-day timeframe for filing, however it is appropriate to first deal with whether Ms Lazenkas' application can be made due to s.725 of the Act.

[3] In Ms Lazenkas' Form F8 General Protections Application, she noted at 1.4 that she had 'lodged a F2 application in error upon seeking legal advice on 27.01.26'. At 1.5 of the F8 she then noted that she had previously started another claim, being 'F2 application (U2025/19578)' and noting that she wished to 'withdraw this application and proceed with this F8 application'.

[4] At 9:32AM on 4 February 2026, Ms Lazenkas was sent an SMS by the Commission in relation to her Unfair Dismissal Application, reminding her that the matter was listed for conciliation conference at 11:15AM on Thursday, 5 February 2026. This prompted Ms Lazenkas to then send the following email to the Commission at 9:44AM:

I received a reminder in relation a conference scheduled for tomorrow at 11:15am.

I have withdrawn this application and have subsequently amended to an F8 application(L019789).

I am awaiting review by FWC if the corrected application is accepted.

[5] This email in turn prompted the Commission to cancel the listed conciliation conference in respect of the Unfair Dismissal Application, with an email being sent by the Commission to the parties in that dispute at 10:59 on 4 February 2026. Shortly afterwards, at around 11:00AM on 4 February, Ms Lazenkas also called the Commission and confirmed that she wished to discontinue her Unfair Dismissal Application. This was actioned and the Commission's file on the Unfair Dismissal Application was closed.

[6] Section 725 of the Act prevents the making of multiple applications in relation to the same dismissal:

A person who has been dismissed must not make an application or complaint of a kind referred to in any one of sections 726 to 732 in relation to the dismissal if any other of those sections applies.'

(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

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

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

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

[8] Section 725 of the Act prevents, in particular circumstances, multiple applications being made in relation to the same dismissal and provides 'A person who has been dismissed must not make an application or complaint of a kind referred to in any one of sections 726 to 732 in relation to the dismissal if any other of those sections applies.' Unfair dismissal applications and general protections applications are applications with which s.725 is concerned.

[9] Having regard to the factual background, Ms Lazenkas was prevented from making the General Protections Application (an application "referred to" in s.727) because s.729 applied. This is because when Ms Lazenkas lodged the General Protections Application on 2 February 2026, she had already made the Unfair Dismissal Application, and at that point in time, the Unfair Dismissal Application had not yet (as prescribed under s.729(1)(b):

(i) been withdrawn,

(ii) failed for want of jurisdiction; or

(iii) failed because the Commission was satisfied that the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy.

[10] It is an unfortunate situation that Ms Lazenkas considered that, by noting in her Form F8 that she wished to withdraw her Unfair Dismissal Application, she would be able to lodge the General Protections Application, however the operation of section 725 of the Act prevents the second application from being made.

[11] As such, I am satisfied that the General Protections Application (C2026/1352) was not made in accordance with s.725 of the Act and that it is appropriate that I exercise the power in s.587(1)(a) of the Act to dismiss it.

[12] Accordingly, I order that Ms Lazenkas' application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer