s.365 - Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal - jurisdictional objection - whether Applicant dismissed - jurisdictional objection rejected - Applicant was dismissed within the meaning of s 386(1) of the Fair Work Act.

• [1] This decision concerns an application made by Phillip Kalolo (the Applicant) in which he asserts that the termination of his employment on 15 August 2025 by Revel Group Pty Ltd (the Respondent) contravened his workplace rights. The general protections application was lodged by the Applicant on 19 August 2025. In its Form F8A response, the Respondent raised a jurisdictional objection to the application, that 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.

• [3] For reasons given on transcript in the proceedings on 15 December 2025, I have found that the Applicant was an employee and was dismissed within the meaning of s 386(1) of the Act. Accordingly, at the time the Applicant made his application on 19 August 2025, he was a person who had been dismissed for the purposes of s 365 of the Act. The Respondent's jurisdictional objection is therefore rejected. The application will now be programmed for conciliation pursuant to s 368 of the Act.

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

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer