s.365 - General protections

Welink Recruitment & Seatram Logistics Pty Limited and Another.

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

[1] On the 12 December 2025, Ms Rachael Maidorn (the Applicant) lodged an application pursuant to s 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) in which she asserts that the termination of her employment on 12 December 2025 by Welink Recruitment (First Respondent), Seatram Logistics Pty Limited (the Second Respondent) and Another (the Third Respondent) (collectively the Respondents) contravened her workplace rights. In its Form F8A response, the First Respondent raised a jurisdictional objection to the application, that the Applicant was 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 within the meaning of s 386 of the Act 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]

[3] Following allocation of the matter to my Chambers, Directions were issued on 20 February 2026 for the filing of material in relation to the jurisdictional objection. Both the Applicant and First Respondent filed material in accordance with the Directions. At the hearing, the Applicant appeared and gave evidence, while the First Respondent was represented by Mr Robert Middleton who also gave evidence and the Second Respondent was represented by Ms Dijana Pagnin.

[4] For reasons given on transcript in proceedings on 25 March 2026, I have found that the Applicant was dismissed within the meaning of s 386(1)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, at the time the Applicant made her application on 12 December 2026, she was a person who had been dismissed for the purposes of s 365 of the Act. The Respondents' jurisdictional objection is therefore dismissed, and the application will now be programmed for a conference 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